Here is hoping the movie in 3D on a huge screen doesn’t look like a video game cut-away sequence.
Trailer is Here. (or see update below.)
**UPDATE** Trailer now tucked under the seat because it ‘autoplays’
115 Comments
Leave a comment
~ Featured ~
-
Feb 08, 2012
Cinecast Episode 245 – White People Cure Racism Through Football
Welcome back to our little show. Lots of in-house business items on the table this...
- Brave New Worldview – 30 Science Fiction Films of the 21st Century (368)
- swiss023: um where’s back to the future parts one, two, and three?
- Talk Amongst Yourselves (7)
- Adamau: Managed to see Safe House the other day and agree it was a fairly decent action film. I will watch anything with...
- Marina: It totally looks and feels like a Tony Scott film but he’s not even executive producer! Bizarre!
- Jericho Slim: Definitely a Tony Scott film, but better than pelham or unstoppable. I doubt you’ll like it as much as me...
- Andrew James: As I said on the Cinecast, I don’t care what anyone says, I know it’s a Tony Scott film. And your...
- Kurt Halfyard: Considering it’s Denzel Washington in the lead, and the slick (if slightly ADHD editing) rhythm of the...
- Jericho Slim: Just saw Safe House. My advice is: Don’t trust the trailers or the first half of the film. The movie takes...
- Cinecast Episode 245 – White People Cure Racism Through Football (17)
- Sean Patrick Kelly: I went to see the Oscar Shorts last night. The animated shorts are definitely overall better than the...
- Rick Vance: So I see my testing the waters of the ‘assignment’ was not as profitable as I thought, digital jazz is...
- Matt Gamble: I’ll see if the girlfriend has any interest, because I am not sitting through that thing alone.
- Andrew James: Which just inspired me to make a new list on LetterBoxd.
- Andrew James: I’m inclined to agree with this. Though I like pretty much all aspects of this film; surprisingly. Young...
- Movies We Watched (1)
- Jericho Slim: Domenic, agreed on pandorum. I assumed it was garbage until I heard Jay on filmjunk say that he liked it. I...
- Cinecast Episode 244 – Of Muscles and Men (56)
- Hans: Thanks a million Jandy!
- DavidM: I’ve received it. Much thanks!
- Jandy Hardesty: Hans, I just sent one to the email you left with your comment. Forgot about those.
- Jandy Hardesty: David, I just sent one your way.
- DavidM: uh, you might need my email address, I suppose: fa2q @ talktalk.net
- DavidM: I’d like an invite please, if you (or anyone else) still has one.
- Hans: Thanks a million Jandy!
- The Amazing Spider-Man trailer debuts. (7)
- DavidM: Well, it’s definitely a post-Dark Knight take on Spiderman – complete with the word ‘BEGINS’...
- Friday One Sheet: Kill List (2)
- Kurt Halfyard: I’d argue for WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, but yea, I loved, loved, loved KILL LIST.
- DavidM: Such a good film. Best horror film of 2011, in fact.
- Steve Carell is seeking a friend for the end of the world. (1)
- Kasper: I hate Carell in whacky comedies, but damn, I love him in these kinds of movies. Must see for me.
- The Bourne Legacy: Our First Glimpse (9)
~ Recent Comments ~
Alright, so the first half of the trailer looks pretty spiffy but Kurt’s onto something here. As beautiful as the second half looks, there’s something odd about it. I have faith in Cameron though. I’m more than happy to bear the headache for him.
So I just watched a new clip. Yeah I know, I say I never do that. But in this case I don’t care about the movie so I indulged.
This new clip is truly groundbreaking though:
http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/800318/avatar/videos/avatar_trl_thanator_chase.html
I’ve never seen a CGI beast chase a guy through the woods before.
Seriously. Does Avatar look that much better than this movie that came out 7 years ago?
I really think to truly analyze this trailer, people need to let go of the all the hype and the Cameron factor, and just look at the trailer. Now the CGI looks decent, but the overall Character Designs are not good. Now I still think the movie could be fun, and i’m still interested, but i’m afraid the weird “Avatars” are going to take me out of it.
And I think it’s impossible to completely take Cameron out of the picture especially when it’s so clear that this is his baby.
This movie isn’t at all what I was expecting from him but how can I NOT give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of what the trailer looks like? And it’s not that it looks bad but the character design does feel a bit cheesy.
Agreed. I give Cameron the benefit of the doubt every time. Having said that, how does this not just look like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within 10 years later?
But it is purty.
Having said that, how does this not just look like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within 10 years later?
Nice to see Row Three following in Campea’s foot steps.
@Andrew – that would be a problem if I didn’t like FINAL FANTASY: THE SPIRITS WITHIN. That movie didn’t make a whole lot of sense but it looked AWESOME.
That said, I’m not sure where you’re drawing that comparison from. Seems out of left field to me.
That said, I’m not sure where you’re drawing that comparison from. Seems out of left field to me.
You don’t see it Marina? If you put Final Fantasy in front of the title, suddenly the trailer looks BAD.
lol from io9
“Following a somewhat mangled launch (Dear Apple, if you’re going to have a countdown clock to something, it’s always a good idea to have said thing ready once you reach zero, so that you don’t get things like this –
- or “Alert: This URL is not valid” error messages.”
I guess I should clarify. I just meant that this just looks like a showcase in the latest of CGI cinema. FF was a showcase if what computers could do then. This is a showcase of what they can do now.
It’s not really a slight on the movie or a praise. It’s just what popped into my head. And for the record, I kind of like FF on some levels.
On following in The Movie Blogs footsteps, heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
On following in The Movie Blogs footsteps, heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Yet somehow you never are. Kudos!
I set that up for you like a good volleyball player. Andrew was supposed to punch you in the face while you were doing your showy spike of the ball! ha.
“You don’t see it Marina? If you put Final Fantasy in front of the title, suddenly the trailer looks BAD.”
If you mean to say that the FX in FF are better than they appear here, I can’t say I’ve seen enough of the effects here to go either way. However, I agree that the last half of this trailer looks budget. I thought for sure that 200B dollars or however much this thing cost, would look better than that. Does that detract me from wanting to see it? No.
What does concern me a little is the fact that a friend saw the con footage and she wasn’t impressed. That has me more worried than any trailer.
I really didn’t feel much of anything watching that trailer and I’m not not entirely sure what this movie is supposed to be about.
As for the CGI, what you see here is certainly not 100% polished. That is the least of my worries.
I don’t disagree that the trailer looks like cut-aways. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of those sequences are imaginatively conceived and well executed.
The trailer might look “computery” but frankly I’m passed that. It sets up a good premise and imaginative imagery and if it lives up to that I won’t care if it’s not photorealistic.
And I’ll give Cameron this. At least he’s still making original films and not Legos The Motion Picture like everyone else.
My one reservation is that big blue cats are not very imaginative aliens.
@Rusty, as much as we gripe, is there anyone that comes to this site that isn’t going to see this?
(Personally I wish there was a 2D option, but like Marina said, I’ll endure the 3D headache to see what Cameron is putting up on screen).
In the words of Fred Dekker, “THRILL ME.”
@ Personally I wish there was a 2D option, but like Marina said, I’ll endure the 3D headache to see what Cameron is putting up on screen
now, isn’t the thing about this movie that it’s introducing a new 3D process?
Yea, but last time I checked, movies are about the actual story, characters and god forbid emotions, not the technical processes. So if this thing needs 3D to be watchable, I’m already calling it an ‘epic failure.’
You said it man. Movies are there to entertain, sure. And 3D is certainly entertaining for some people. But not for me. I’ve had my share and I’m done with it. I prefer a nice looking “flat” image.
“Yea, but last time I checked, movies are about the actual story, characters and god forbid emotions, not the technical processes. So if this thing needs 3D to be watchable, I’m already calling it an ‘epic failure.’”
I would say the exact same thing about all of the criticism regarding the CG and ‘cut scene’ comparisons. This trailer is a teaser and has revealed very little in regards to story/character, yet so many people are already ripping on the film based on the tech.
Having said that, I’m also not a fan of 3D.
@ So if this thing needs 3D to be watchable, I’m already calling it an ‘epic failure.’
This is one of times when I just think you’re acting ridiculous. Cameron develops some new technique = needs to be in 3D to be watchable ???
Epic failure just on the word “3D” and a two minute trailer?? Call me old fashioned but I’m gonna watch the movie before I use the words “epic failure”.
This new fangled “i’m gonna tweeter about how this is the sux because the trailers haven’t shown me enough about the 2nd act and the movie’s release is only months away!!! How will they appeal to 4th quadrant viewers with out minority side kicks!?! DOOM!!!!!!”
If rowthree want to earn your elitist / I’m a bigger film snob than you rep, then at the very least you should rise above trendy crap like this.
It’s silly. Whether it’s cinemascope or technicolor or a talkie; film is always a technical medium. Cameron is just embracing that aspect of the medium more than most.
And yes, based on my watching of UP i’m not a big fan of the 3d either.
Kurt would be the guy in 1938 saying “If this Robin Hood movie needs color to be watchable, I’m calling it epic failure”.
That’s actually not a bad analogy.
oh yeah. Speaking of the movie blog. Am I the only one who thinks that site is looking on its last legs? I give it another month.
The Robin Hood comparison to what Kurt is saying is NOT a good example. Kurt used the word “need.” In other words, if you watch this movie in 2D and it just doesn’t work for what the film is trying for, then yeah that kind of sucks. If it’s a technology that to appreciate it you HAVE to wear a pair of giant sunglasses then forget about it. I don’t like 3D, but if someone else does that’s fine. That’s why they make two versions (though usually the 2D version is becoming more and more difficult to track down). Coraline didn’t NEED to be in 3D to enjoy it. Neither did Up. In fact I think those films are better without the use of 3D. But if Avatar needs to be in 3D to look right, then maybe failure isn’t the right word, but I would certainly that sucks.
Do you still have to wear glasses for the 3D? Do movies have a sign pop up that tell you to wear them, or do you just wear them throughout?
New tech deserves a shot, but I agree having to wear special stuff is bullshit.
The Robin Hood thing is to show the lameness of a word like “need” though. Robin Hood didn’t need to be in color, but it was. They did not release two prints, to prove to Kurt that their movie didn’t need color. Does that lessen the movie in any way? Obviously not.
I think Coraline and Up were made as regular films then made into 3D for novelty’s sake. This is supposedly not the case with Avatar. It does lessen the impact when all these fucking idiotfilms are doing it though, so any WOW-effect might have worn off by the time Avatar is released.
Are you kidding me? The Robin Hood analogy stinks. I’m not shitting on Avatar because it uses new technology at all, but if the story is not up to par, who cares about the graphics? The overall ‘airplanes and large-eyed aliens was good looking in TERRA (or THE BATTLE FOR TERRA as it was released), I’m sure Cameron has put together a much better story, but man with all the buzz this thing was getting, how can anyone not feel let down by what was shown there? Seriously, why buzz up the movie to those heights with all the Cameron on Tour and technological PR crap? Couldn’t Cameron’s first major feature film in 12 years have been enough without all the technology wankery? Just me.
Hey if Avatar is THE WIZARD OF OZ (a much better use of color analogy) than so be it.
But I still sit down and enjoy The General, Casablanca, Modern Times and The Third Man on a regular basis, ditto Night of the Living Dead, White Zombie, and The Man that Wasn’t there. Colour isn’t a requirement (neither is sound), albeit some films benefit from it. I enjoy when modern filmmakers go B&W (The Man That Wasn’t There for instance, but also the new Haneke looks great!) and I enjoy when filmmakers do not need dialogue or even sound to make things work, because these directors are telling an interesting story.
The Avatar movie has been sold first on technology, and this teaser doesn’t give enough info for story other than to suggest by the imagery that the imagery was the first order of business. On that end. Fail.
@ Kurt used the word “need.” In other words, if you watch this movie in 2D and it just doesn’t work for what the film is trying for, then yeah that kind of sucks.
which would be fine except that Kurt has not seen the film. So his remarks are a reaction not to the content of the movie but to the word 3D.
@ That’s why they make two versions (though usually the 2D version is becoming more and more difficult to track down).
Personally I prefer to see films in the manner the director intended. They don’t show a b&w and a color version. Or a talkie version and a silent version. You don’t watch scope films projected flat.
Cameron’s right to insist the movie be shown the way he intended. If anything it’s the two version model that’s the shallow gimmick. Cameron’s made a stereoscopic film so that’s how you should watch it.
@ I’m not shitting on Avatar because it uses new technology at all, but if the story is not up to par, who cares about the graphics?
You totally are shitting on the movie for using new technology!
“Here is hoping the movie in 3D on a huge screen doesn’t look like a video game cut-away sequence.”
“I’ll endure the 3D headache”
” I’m already calling it an ‘epic failure.’”
See. You’re certaintly not judging it based on the content of the story and characters because you haven’t even seen the movie.
“I’m not shitting on Avatar because it uses new technology at all, but if the story is not up to par, who cares about the graphics?”
Why not say that instead then? If the story sucks, then it doesn’t need to be in 3D to be good, then it’s a bad movie. None of us know. But you’re acting like Cameron went “This story sucks so bad, I better wait for a gimmick to make it”, which is conjecture at best, ignorance at worst.
I agree with Rusty that if Cameron says it’s 3D, it’s 3D, and you if don’t want it, don’t watch it. And not because it’s Cameron, I could take or leave him, but because any director deserves control over their movie, regardless of whatever the audience prefers or thinks is proper.
And last I checked, Wizard of Oz came out a year after Adventures of Robin Hood, so how is it a better analogy? Are you saying Avatar is late to the game?
I guess maybe Robin Hood is colorized and Oz is shot on color film?
Yea, well, most films are filmed in 35mm and meant to be projected on the screen instead of seen in a ‘refreshed array of pixels’. So who is going to draw the line at that. Stop watching your DVDs guys, that is not how the director intended.
I am sure you have watched pan & scan or TV broadcasts too or even colour films on a black & white television if you are born beyond a certain year. You watch films that is not the ‘directors final cut’ because the studio compromises them, or you watch post-director wankery a la George Lucas. I’m not saying it is ideal, but we rarely see films the way they were intended. What are you going to do when Avatar leaves the cinema? Is the modern stereoscopic film going to be like the pre-video age where once it is gone from the theatre, that is it?
It is an interesting 21st century dilemma.
@ Yea, well, most films are filmed in 35mm and meant to be projected on the screen instead of seen in a ‘refreshed array of pixels’.
And that is why I go to my local cinema quite often. Because I prefer to watch films in a manner as close as possible to what the director intended.
This is a losing argument for you and you know it.
And I’m at the point where I find panned and scanned really distracting.
I’m only taking this to these extremes because your reaction to my reaction seems a bit bombastic. Are you guys really lathering at the mouth for Avatar? Are you guys really excited for what 3D is going to do for cinema? Really?
This stuff bores me and yea the lasted crop of 3D animated features, and the ones coming up, are exhausting to think about. I’ll take something like Ponyo that actually has some wacky ideas in its head over Monsters Vs. Aliens 3D. And Up in 2D was mighty fine, thankyou very much.
I’d rather see people shoot in 70mm or Imax than 3D.
Furthermore in something like Ratatouille, I walk away with Anton Ego’s speech on the value of criticism or taste rather than, boy-oh-boy the graphics of the rust on those pots was amazing.
“Yea, well, most films are filmed in 35mm and meant to be projected on the screen instead of seen in a ‘refreshed array of pixels’.”
Which is how they are made and fucking shown dude. The DVD shit comes after, is a pisspoor replacement for the pisspoor people that we are, but never represents the full experience and is a flawed medium because of it. Nobody here is arguing that a DVD is representative of what the director wants, but he did get what he wanted, it was shown in theatres – somewhere, usually his country of origin – with everything as good as the particular theatre can muster, which is all you can hope for.
I would have no problem if I saw Avatar in the theatre in 3D and whateverelse, and loved it to death, but it was never released on DVD or any other form of home video. That would be fine. I haven’t watched Pan & Scan since I became aware of it, and TV broadcasts here aren’t edited. I watch DVDs, but it’s nothing like the cinema, and I know it when I watch the film, if it’s a first time viewing, and if I love it, I grieve all the more.
Again though, I fail to see your point. Cameron should compromise from the get-go because it is going to happen eventually? Where is your so-called belief in the auteur-theory (to be honest, a concept I think you grasp onto because it’s easily understood, yet sounds clever) now? If you want to be comfortable and don’t want 3D because it gives you a headache fine, but don’t look down on people for experimenting with it. And, as Rusty pointed out, this:
“I’ll endure the 3D headache”
+
“I’m not shitting on Avatar because it uses new technology at all”
=
John Campea.
The problem with your snobbyness is that it’s random and borderline impossible to understand, to the point where it seems like you’re just grasping unto certain things to gripe about without having thought anything through, and it wrecks any charm it might have had, had it been consistent and based in something that made sense once in awhile.
“Furthermore in something like Ratatouille, I walk away with Anton Ego’s speech on the value of criticism or taste”
The fact that this connects with you and Lady in the Water doesn’t, proves that you’re not out of adolescence and into adulthood yet, in my oppinion. The difference is that adolescents find childishness annoying and a waste of time, while adults find it romantic and joyful.
@ You watch films that is not the ‘directors final cut’ because the studio compromises them
Your argument falls apart because I’m not saying I will only watch a film that is the undiluted pure artist vision of the director. I’m saying I prefer to watch a film in the form that’s as close to what the makers intended as is available. This is something I think we all agree on here.
And I’ve come to the persuasion that’s there’s not any one definitive version of a movie, there’s just different versions of a movie.
The blockbuster approved edit of L’Interiere sounds like a total abortion (ha ha) but it’s not ‘less real’ than the european cut, it’s just bad. The fact that the director endorsed it does nothing to aleviate the problem.
“Are you guys really lathering at the mouth for Avatar? Are you guys really excited for what 3D is going to do for cinema? Really?”
Avatar or 3D, for me, is not even part of the argument. It’s about ANY new technology, anything innovative, you should not boo at it from the get-go, or dismiss it because the first one wasn’t good.
I’m not lathering at the mouth for Avatar, it doesn’t seem like it will affect me in a big way, but I did like the trailer and all the colorful nonsense. It inspired me to re-watch Star Wars 3, and I have to say, if you just fast-forward 2 or 3 akward as hell scenes of tenderness, that movie is fucking kickass.
@ Are you guys really lathering at the mouth for Avatar? Are you guys really excited for what 3D is going to do for cinema?
No I’m not lathering at the mouth for it. But I think the reactions from the online community have been unreasonably judgemental and cynical.
There’s nothing in that trailer that’s obviously terrible. There’s no reason to go on record as being cynical about it based on two minutes of footage. All I know about it is it’s got an interesting premise and some strong visuals. Also the score kicksass. I’m certainly not gonna pass judgement on some 3D process I haven’t seen.
And while I don’t put much stock in this being the next evolutionary step forward for cinema but it’s pretty clear Cameron does. So I can either decide he’s full of shit and ignore the movie or keep an open mind and decide for myself after I see it. Everyone else it seems has chosen the former.
I’m not even really a Cameron fan. I’ve seen all his films once. I don’t have a favorite. But he’s at the forefront of the technological edge of cinema so he’s worth keeping an eye on.
I guess we’ll leave it that my indifference to Avatar is ill advised. If the experience was pure and all, what the F are they releasing it on the web before Avatar Day?
We live in a world of compromises.
These sorts of movies rarely excite me. I know rather regret posting the trailer as really, I am just not all that excited about this technology.
On another note, Henrik’s adult/child bullshit is exhausting to listen to (er, read). Much of his behavior is adolescent condescension.
On lady in the water, you focus on the positive and ignore the negative, I just see things the other way around, I do not think our opinions on that movie are as far apart as you seem to feel.
@ The trailer might look “computery” but frankly I’m passed that. It sets up a good premise and imaginative imagery and if it lives up to that I won’t care if it’s not photorealistic.
And I’ll give Cameron this. At least he’s still making original films and not Legos The Motion Picture like everyone else.
That’s my appraisal of the trailer that Kurt described as “bombastic”
Right after he declared
” I’m already calling it an ‘epic failure.’”
this is why online forums are better than talking face to face.
“Henrik’s adult/child bullshit”
You’re bullshit!
Well, my text in the post is “Here is hoping the movie in 3D on a huge screen doesn’t look like a video game cut-away sequence” That isn’t crazy cynical, just judging from what the stuff looks like to me at first go. It’s an opinion based on the marketing materials, simple as that.
Wow, I actually feel like you guys have backed me into a corner or something. Congrats.
“Wow, I actually feel like you guys have backed me into a corner or something. Congrats.”
I guess if you feel like WE did it, we have accomplished nothing.
@Rusty, Well, on my gravestone, the phrase “Consistency” is highly unlikely to appear. Just ask my wife.
The problem is that in a comment by comment thing, often context is tough to extract, and things can get out of hand.
But yea, in the $250M plus zone, I’m usually ready to be suspicious as there are a lot of fingers in the pie with that kind of coin on the table, and the temptation to be a slave to the tech, or demos, or whathave you is always in the back of my mind, but honestly, I’m reacting to yes a 2D trailer released on the web. Sure I’m going to see the darn thing, but this is my honest opinion of where the film stands now.
Hold out for my review before you judge me fellas.
And Henrik, you’ve ceased to be fun. Good night and find someone else to be passive agressive, faux innocent, all around shit-disturber with. It can get bloody exhausting.
Cherioo
I guess if you feel like WE did it, we have accomplished nothing.
what was the goal exactly, to point out my lack of consistency. my wife does this every day. This is nothing new, revelatory, or frankly even interesting at that point.
“you’ve ceased to be fun.”
I never intended to be.
“It can get bloody exhausting.”
Exhausting, straining, even friends of mine complain about this. I have little-to-no filter and yeah, that is tough shit, but I have little sympathy once you state things in a public forum, you deserve nothing but the audiences honest response. I don’t think I ever claim to be innocent of anything I do here though.
I could give a shit about consistency, if only you were making any sense. The problem is that you seem to make up rationalizations on the spot that make little or no sense, and that annoys people and they feel like calling you on it, if they disagree with you. Sometimes it happens, again, tough shit man.
@ the phrase “Consistency” is highly unlikely to appear. Just ask my wife.
hey, hobgoblin of small minds.
@ I’m usually ready to be suspicious as there are a lot of fingers in the pie with that kind of coin on the table
there’s a lot goin’ on in that sentence, fingers on tables… coins in pies…. it’s exhausting.
I was hoping this would be a place to discuss film and not yet another flame war conduit. If I wanted this sort thing, I’d go to the IMDb forums. There are some good points and insights scattered throughout the 50+ ocmments. But it takes too much sifting in a HAZMAT suit to find them.
Familiarity breeds contempt Michael. Doesn’t happen that often though, mostly comments are kept below 10.
“I’ll endure the 3D headache”
+
“I’m not shitting on Avatar because it uses new technology at all”
=
John Campea.”
Whoa now! Let’s not get crazy here.
There’s no need for that type of language.
And Rust, agree on the TMB demise thing (we were just talking about it in fact)
Video game cut-scene is right. Not so sure about this. Weren’t they promising us a huge technological breakthrough?
http://thejamminjabber.com/2009/08/20/avatar-trailer-ridiculously-awesome-or-awesomely-ridiculous/
Couldn’t Cameron’s first major feature film in 12 years have been enough without all the technology wankery?
I think this got a bit lost in the discussion, but when was the last time Cameron made a film that didn’t talk up the technical achievements it had made? Pirhana II for sure. True Lies maybe? Even his IMAX films were pushing the technology boundaries and made sure to let everyone know about it.
Cameron has always been a pioneer when it comes to the technical side of film making, so to bash him for it now seems a bit peculiar.
“Personally I prefer to see films in the manner the director intended. They don’t show a b&w and a color version. Or a talkie version and a silent version. “
Of course. But color or sound might be a necessity for the story or substance of the plot. Which I can get on board with (because I grew up with them I guess). If sound is needed to progress the story, then so be it. You may like that or prefer to just listen to music while you watch imagery. You may prefer B&W over the bombastic explosion of technicolor. Fine, you may miss out on a message or maybe even plot points without color. Which is what I’m saying here. If Cameron’s Avatar requires 3D glasses for the movie to make sense or work on any level, then I’m with Kurt and cry bullshit on this.
Others may scream “wow look at this new technology and from now on, all movies will all be in 3D to help further the story.” If this becomes reality, I will unfortunately stop going to new films and just watch all the films of the past I have yet to see yet… in glorious flat screen.
@ I was hoping this would be a place to discuss film and not yet another flame war conduit.
So discuss the fucking movie, who’s stopping you. It seems like you’re more interested in making passive aggressive comments about everyone else. I can’t stand comments like yours.
If Cameron’s Avatar requires 3D glasses for the movie to make sense or work on any level, then I’m with Kurt and cry bullshit on this.
So when you can watch 3D and 2D versions of the same film with no difference it is a gimmick, but if the 3D creates a new experience then it is a gimmick?
Matt, exactly. 3D is a gimmick. Color and sound are not.
The only way 3D would NOT be a gimmick is if it is required for the story to work. And if that’s the case, then it’s just annoying (to me) that someone would make a movie that absolutely requires me to wear glasses to understand the movie.
@ And Rust, agree on the TMB demise thing (we were just talking about it in fact)
Who’s we and where were you discusing it? What brought on the conversation?
I guess it seems pretty obvious at this point. No review for District 9, no Basterds review, it all seems so half assed at this point.
I went into the comments to see if anyone had remarked about the lack of updates. I found one post where it seemed like the dude had commented on it previously and it was deleted.
I hope John sells the site to Rodney and TMB has to skate by on the wit and charisma of Rodney Brazau.
TMB demise-
hasn’t it been declining in quality for some time? no podcasts anymore which was pretty much their bread and butter. now all they do is copy and paste portions of stories that are on about 1000 other sites and then say “i agree” or “i disagree” and then to counter it john just puts up his op/ed video blog in which frankly he kinda comes off as a little bit of a psycho. “why we’re excited to see g.i. joe” – wow, fascinating.
What are you going to do when you get older and are required to wear a listening device to understand a film?
At that point I probably won’t be able to understand the film anyway. And I’ll be too busy popping Viagras and sticking 34 year-old nurses.
What if they made a movie that had plot point involved which required you to feel something vibrating in your chair? In other words, how stupid would it be if D-Box were required to understand the movie? 3D is the same thing. Or smell-o-vision or whatever they called that experiment back in the day.
@ I’ll be too busy popping Viagras and sticking 34 year-old nurses.
year olds are too young to be “sticking” Andrew! Especially 34 at a time! Shame on you!
Rusty, nice. Also year-old nurses might be tough to find.
@ if you watch this movie in 2D and it just doesn’t work for what the film is trying for, then yeah that kind of sucks.
@ The only way 3D would NOT be a gimmick is if it is required for the story to work.
so… I’m confused. Should 3D be necessary to the story or not?
I think the reason you’re eating your own tail like this is because you’re not sure if the movie works or not because you haven’t seen it.
@”so… I’m confused. Should 3D be necessary to the story or not?”
No. 3D sucks (for me) either way. Which is why I wrote this which you snipped out of the quote you took from me:
“The only way 3D would NOT be a gimmick is if it is required for the story to work. And if that’s the case, then it’s just annoying (to me) that someone would make a movie that absolutely requires me to wear glasses to understand the movie.“
You know most people had fun with William Castle’s productions.
But my point is still that you are actively complaining that 3D is bad if it creates a new type of film experience, while actively claiming that sound and color were good BECAUSE they created a new experience. You’re taking a truly ridiculous, and hypocritical, position.
Matt,
Which is why I clarified that some people probably prefer B&W or silent films to talkies. And that’s fine. But I don’t think it’s hypocritical to appreciate color and sound but not appreciate 3D. It is simply a preference. So when someone comes along and says, “to appreciate (or even understand this movie), you have to wear giant sunglasses,” I get annoyed.
It takes more than a year to earn your nursing accreditation Andrew! Most programs are TWO year!
“So when someone comes along and says, “to appreciate (or even understand this movie), you have to wear giant sunglasses,” I get annoyed.”
Good news!
he only stumbling block he foresaw was public opposition to 3D glasses, which he could not understand. Cameron himself already has 3D contacts. As with everything else 3D, he is already at the forefront of the industry.
First comment after that article:
“Cameron = Loser. 3D blows. It’s come and gone a half dozen times. Newfangled “stereoscopic” is the same as old-fashioned “stereoscopic.” Cameron lacks a fundamental “adult gene” that permits him to appreciate that it’s basically about storytelling, not the “visceral experience.” He fears being boring more than anything else. Ironically, he more he talks about 3D, the more of a bore he becomes.”
3D blows…touche. got any imdb comments you’d like to regale us with next?
“Am I the only one who thinks that site is looking on its last legs? I give it another month.”
That’s only because Campea won’t need that site anymore after unveiling the box office juggernaut / Oscar bait that is THE ANNIVERSARY
“That’s only because Campea won’t need that site anymore after unveiling the box office juggernaut / Oscar bait that is THE ANNIVERSARY”
LOL
I wonder how many people realize that all of Rodney’s posts at TMB are actually cloned from his own site, ‘The Stub’: http://thestub.ca/
First I’ve heard of his site.
I think if anyone knew maybe he’d actually have a commenter or two on any of his posts on his own site.
Seems like quite the odd business deal to me.
Did Film Junk get crippled by Digg again?
Forget it, site is back up again.
I went to digg and found this as the second top story
http://www.moviefill.com/5-Lessons-Hollywood-Can-Learn-from-District-9-18173/
So another site takes Seans post (and while they do credit him at the very bottom) they get all the attention.
@ I wonder how many people realize that all of Rodney’s posts at TMB are actually cloned from his own site, ‘The Stub’:
Including this gem that appeared for an hour before being deleted:
“But this trailer looks COMPLETELY different from the previous one. Dare I say that I might actually be interested in District 9?
After this trailer I suddenly am.”
http://thestub.ca/2009/07/new-district-9-trailer-online/
the trailer he’s refering to is the SAME one from the infamous michael bay experiment post.
So another site takes Seans post (and while they do credit him at the very bottom) they get all the attention.
They are pulling a ton of posts from Film Junk. In fact it looks like they are posting every single one of Film Junk’s posts, and they aren’t the only site they are doing that with. That seems more then a little odd.
it looks like Sean made an arrangement with them, but they’re not getting the hits from it they thought they would.
I wouldn’t think they would. Especially if they are pulling every article FJ posts. There’s no reason to go to FJ then.
all the reports I’m seeing from the Avatar preview are between good to mindblowingly positive, with every person I’ve read claiming the theater applauded.
That’s what I’ve read too Goon. And again, while I didn’t love this trailer, I’m going in 100% on the side of Cameron. As of right now, I’ve got his back and still expecting to be amazed.
I don’t HATE Cameron but I’ve never been a huge fan either. I like Aliens, The Abyss, and everything else I’ve been so so on. But he does make movies that are event and spectacle enough that I’m always ready to give him a chance.
I would have seen his Aquaman movie
Nobody applauded in our theater. Some even left early. Splitting headache from the action scene. Cameron needs to fix his 3D!
I’d been snarking a couple places that this looked like Delgo:
guess someone else did some digging around:
http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html
“The last site I had the privilege to work for was The Movie Blog and after 6 years of writing for them, I decided to branch out on my own. In TV terms, I am the spinoff.”
Which is why all my shit also appears on TMB, where people will actually see it.
“So when deciding on a name for my new home, I turned to John Campea, friend of over 16 years to see if he had any ideas. The only thing he had to suggest was that I not include “Movie” or “film” in my name because that is so overdone.”
He was too busy perfecting the hairstyles that would give The Anniversary that 1997 hipster look to suggest anything lamer.
“So I am a Stub. I pay to watch, and like you and your friends you discuss it and share what you have paid to watch.
You are a Stub too.”
I am also a complete tool who has fathered two children. The faces of all you have wronged will now float before you.
I 3> R3.
Hang on:
Marina Said,
Congrats on the new site Rodney! Looking good!
<__>
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8498/stub.jpg
Can we not get the Avatar Trailer thread up to 100 comments? God Bless the righteous indignation at TMB and Co.
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/4410/tmbmrduh2.png
Fucker
If that Juan Carlos Fresnadillo rumor is true, Dave, I’m a sad person. Probably the most talented genre director working today, I’d hate to see him spend a year or more on something like Bioshock. The guy totally proved himself and kicked ass in the ‘hollywood style’ big-budget movie 28 Weeks Later… and I’d love for him to do smart sci-fi or something, not an action vidoe game movie.
Here is hoping that he can do whatever he wants with the property and the company that owns the game isn’t going to meddle with his direction.
“I’d love for him to do smart sci-fi or something, not an action vidoe game movie.”
Are you actually familiar with the plot/story of BioShock? I’m not a gamer, but I think it looks plenty interesting and fully capable of a good adaption. I’d say that about Half-Life as well.
Half-Life 2 > Kurt.
I mean seriously, you’re bemoaning a guy who made his name on a sequel taking on a story more interesting and original than this first film, and probably more interesting and original than anything that would otherwise pass along his desk. Kurt, take some time and head to wikipedia and read the BioShock synopsis/storyline.
Actually, I was doing that earlier this morning as I worked up a post on Twitch, and the Bioshock storyline atmosphere world is pretty swell.
I guess my worry with a video game property is that there is one more ‘committee’ (as in Bungie/Habro interference in Halo/Transformers) to get their paws in and mess with the direction/idea of the project. With something original like District 9, there seems to be more freedom.
I’m still blown away with what Fresnadillo did with the 28 Sequel… And I want this guy to have as much freedom as possible if he is going to invest 2-3 years on a project.
Has anyone seen Intacto? I’d like more like that, totally out there concept done with visual flair. I mean Intacto isn’t a perfect movie by a long shot, but what a crazy idea, and quite the execution for a debut feature. 28 Weeks Later… was a massive step up. And I want this guy to keep getting better and more original and not be shackled by the ‘blockbuster all demographics’ mentality.
As much as I liked THE DARK KNIGHT, I thought Chris Nolan managed something more magical with THE PRESTIGE (admittedly from a book, but lower budget $85Mil as opposed to TDK’s $180Mil).
“I guess my worry with a video game property is that there is one more ‘committee’ (as in Bungie/Habro interference in Halo/Transformers) to get their paws in and mess with the direction/idea of the project.”
To be fair, 2K Boston (developers of the game) and 2K Games (the publisher) are not the giant behemoths Bungie and Microsoft are (Microsoft more so). I don’t think they would be any more intrusive with the production than id was with Doom. You can infer from that statement many different things. I was totally on board with Verbinski directing but Fresnadillo would be a good choice too. It’s great that we can actually talk about this, but the sad thing it’s nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor from a website that no longer bothers sourcing where it gets information.
Truth be told, I think Sam Raimi is going to have more freedom to make the Warcraft movie than he did with Spider-Man 3.
http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/08/fresnadillo-in-bioshock-talks.html
There is the source all the other websites are citing, even Film Junk. Hi Sean! Apparently a few people are holding onto that whole “boycott Variety” nonsense.
this is… underwhelming. not because of the unpolished effects, but because the story doesn’t look that interesting. it is just going to be filled with sappy romance like Titanic. and while i am even a defender of Titanic on occasion, i was hoping for something brutal and testosterone filled like T2 or True Lies, except with aliens.
One more
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9139/campea1.png
I dare that fucker to come over here and defend his “comment policies.”
Dave, your obsessions with Mr. Campea is getting out of hand. Row Three is not the venue for this sort of thing. I appreciate that many of us do not agree with TMB and the way that site has been run (several of us have been banned from commenting, etc. etc.) but this is getting out of hand.
(No I’ve not talked to anyone from that site, it is just that complaining about TMB is both counterproductive to what we do here, and frankly, exhausting.
Thanks.
Srry, Kurt
But Andrew, is has a climatic waterfall jump!