It just sounds like you're playing the insurance card to me. What's said to be one of the biggest films ever and you automatically want to find faults every-which-way you can. But you say stuff like "I might change my mind when I see it buuut this is what I think about as of right now." Just so you can be the guy to say "I told you so" if it sucks..

I still want to know what you mean about the Battlestar resemblance. BSG uses a grainy style. They also also use very bright whites in there out door/day sequences (a blown out look). The style of BSG and Avatar are nothing alike. Have you seen the show?

I'm not sure that proves your point either. You're still the minority.

Damn, a 13%?! I still plan on seeing it but I can't lie and say that I'm not worried now...

EDIT: I guess there are only 20 something reviews up. But still, not the reviews I was expecting.

Last edited by CX3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total

I was a bit shocked myself. A friend of mine went to the Norwegian opening on Wednesday (Gerard Butler was there), and she was pretty exited, but wasn't overly impressed by the film. I took that as a bad sign as well.

On the other hand, Hybrid should be celebrating.



The first link was to the "Top Critics". Still even with over a hundred reviews it doesn't look to good.

Last edited by Staff Only on Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Honestly though, it sounds like it's right up Atom's alley.

Even more new footage in the Japanese trailer.

I love the facial expressions on Jake and Neytiri during the Archery training. Neytiri's eyes look so real.

The funniest thing about rotten tomatoes is the fact that it's always the negative reviews that have comments - and 99% of those comments go among the lines of "You're a worthless piece of crap" or "YOUR OPINION SUXXURZ LOL".

Always amusing how threatened people feel by different opinions. And as if being in the "minority" or "majority" makes any difference.

Yes, I agree that this is quite silly when it comes to films/music etc., but I do kind of understand people being a bit touchy when it comes to race, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation etc. I generally only feel threatened when the political parties that oppose my views are doing well, because the reason I don't support them is because I think they are ruining the world. I also get...a tad angry when I see racial intolerance or discrimination. And finally I am guilty of worrying that Twilight 2 might set all time box office records and/or beat Avatar.

But apart from that you simply wont see me getting bothered.

CG looks really, really good. But I can't help thinking that the Na'vi might have been made the same way the Orcs were: with makeup and stuff. I'm no expert, but you know...just seems to me that it might have worked better.

But hey, you won't see me complaining about CGI. Looks really cool.

Atom, you sound like you're just forcing yourself to be down on this movie at this point.

There are a couple of reasons why this could not be done.

#1 Performance. Cameron wanted complete performance and that is the biggest step forward in CGI this movie offers. The orcs never demanded our sympathy or a lot of screentime/close-ups.

#2 Cheesiness. If it weren't for Mystique I would honestly not think a blue painted person could look anything less than utterly ridiculous on screen. The Na'vi look that human because we are supposed to care for them, not because they "almost" could have been done with doubles. Aliens being played by painted humans is very 60s-90s sci-fi television standard. It's the cheesiest thing they tried to get away with in Abrams' Star Trek, and it only (arguably) worked because it was a homage. And even if the dinosaur stampede in King Kong 2005 is known as the most cringe-worthy scene in the film I think the prosthetic natives far exceed rushed CGI in cheesiness.

#3 Impossible anyway. Even though the Na'vi may look like they can be played by humans they are completely different to any human I've ever seen: 10ft tall, much thinner than humans, much bigger eyes, completley different noses, and different placement of ears (not to mention 4 fingers), and tails. Now again with the X-Men example but the half CG, half rubber solution for Nightcrawler's tail would not work in Avatar because the Na'vi have so little clothing that you can see the place the tail attaches to the body, and the tails are in constant movement. Cameron said they invented a body-language for the Na'vi's tails so they are not just hanging there either.

#4 Awesomeness/Wow factor. Even in the 90s Cameron knew that his Na'vi had to be CGI. That's why the film was shelved. He didn't want it to look like a guy in make-up, he wanted it to look like aliens. Now whether or not they do is another story, but I think that "almost" perfect CGI aliens is much better than a result where you watch and go: "Man, make-up must have been a b**ch."

Well I think that's the general idea.

Last edited by Staff Only on Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yeah, Cameron has said that makeup would actually mask the actors' true facial expressions/emotions. With CGI, you can see 100% of their true range of emotions.

Quite true. I guess all the Orcs had to do was growl. And they already looked like that.

When I see CG from, say, MiB, I'm like "Wow. CGI has come soooo far."

Well, there's no winning with you guys, so there.

I'm wrong, you're right, you win. No, I've never seen Battlestar Gallactica, but the clips of it I have seen I was comparing on a 'TV lighting/quality-to-film lighting/quality' basis because it's a big budget sci-fi series. Why deduce that to such scrunity? I just meant it as a comparison of cleaner, less-graded TV 'look' to that of films. Not with complete specifics that single TV show.

I call things like I see them, I always have, and I won't be apologetic for that. I was ecstatic to see The Dark Knight, perhaps it's biggest fan, but wasn't the biggest fan when it came out. That's just how it was. That's how it always is.

I bring up Law Abiding Citizen because I thought it looked intriguing and well-cast (and I generally like F. Gary Gray as a director), but as time passed I admit had increasingly less interest in seeing it, so I read the spoilers, I saw the dismal Rotten Tomatoes rating, and I had a diminished enthusiasm to watch it. But Ben bugged me for several days and dragged me to see it and you know what:

I loved it. It was great; even with all the preposterous plot points I read in the spoilers.

My point? I'm not out to hate every movie, I just watch what comes my way, make opinions and decisions on it all, and that's that.

There's no hidden hatred or message behind that. I call things like I see them, just like everybody else. Whether that puts me in the minority or majority most times is completely irrelevant.

But enough of that. If anything I'm most excited by the super ratings Fantastic Mr. Fox is sporting right now. Despite my ambiguity with trusting the 'style' of the film, I have to say I'm generally a Wes Anderson fan and am happy to see the movie, at least early on, is doing well.

You just really seem to want this movie to do badly an excessive amount. Everytime some new detail comes along, you need to scrutinize it for some reason. You should try watching movies without learning plot details, and saturating your mind with opinions about them before you go in.

You might be surprised at how much fun it is to be surprised by something.