Avatar Dec. 18th IMAX 3D Second Trailer

FF was okay -- but it's now going to look antique.

"Beowolf" had the advantage of being so dark -- it gave the CGI artists and techs a lot of leeway on detail and movement because you could barely see it. I really didn't get much pass half-way-through the movie -- it's still on my DVR and I found it to be booooring.

It think the highly colored, colorist palette and the 3-D can give "Avatar" an artificial look, but that's actually a true alien look. I think "cartoonish" (which I've read as a criticism for several weeks in surfing the Web) is a mistaken response for the fantasized imagery (it's Pandora, not the Amazon jungle). Cartoons are flat black line drawings, colored in, and in most modern hand-drawn animation (like the new "Princess and the Frog") used some computer tweaking to give it a more "3-D" look on a flat screen. I could say "Toy Story" looked "cartoonish," but that's because it's suppose to, despite that it is computer generated. Same with the best animation of the decade, and one of my top ten films, "Ratatoille." There's more of a cartoon stylization in that film. The "stylization" in "Avatar" is not cartoon stylization. It's a fantasy world stylization based on what an entirely different evolution would produce but hard to prove by analyzing the film for natural selection. Can't be done.

There were no hobbits 10,000 years ago, either.

I'll be seeing it in 2D sometime in the next 4-5 days. I'll let you know if my perceptions change at all.

Really, to me, 3D = campy/cartoony. Even in the few live action 3D movies out there (My Bloody Valentine, for example), I even think of that movie as cartoony, and they were real actors. I'll need to do the 2D to remove that bias from my mind.

I thought the novelty if the 3-D wore off after about 20 minutes into the film and I wasn't even that aware of it -- after all, we see everything around us in 3-D. Are you living in a cartoon, maporsche? Is it a soap opera cartoon like Tiger Woods? Only kidding, of course, but I think we're just disagreeing on semantics here.

What's the next invented word going to be: "cartoonynish?"

Merriam-Webster are both turning over in their graves.

(bring me some more eggnogg and I will get through this).

Just because that's how it's been used in the past doesn't mean that's how it has to be used in the future.

Think of all the things that have been driven by early adoption in the porn industry: photography, home movies, VCRs, DVDs, the Internet. They all grew beyond that to be adopted as "mainstream", and 3D can achieve the same thing.

I was just explaining the bias that I have toward 3D movies, not trying to stifle future entertainment options.

My opinion regarding 3D is not unique though; it's a hurdle that movie makers will have to overcome (and likely will).

Actually, I'm rather excited for the possibility of 3D video games. That is one venue where the technology could be adopted early.

They seem to have overcome it -- not only did "Avatar" break all IMAX 3-D records over the weekend, it's likely never going to be topped until the sequels. Cameron has some proprietary technology which I wonder how eager he will be to share yet. As far as the 3-D "effect," of course it's going to be improved on. I stated earlier that there already is a holographic process but the two hurdles are still cost and the viewing angle. It will obviously, like IMAX, be in special and very expensive theaters so they can overcome the viewing angle but the cost is going to keep it out of the mainstream for at least another decade.

It may not be absolutely perfect to the perfectionist for sure, but it's the most effective used of 3-D I have ever seen, especially with CGI effects. "The Dark Knight" was very well done but, again, mostly dark scenes that always seem to look the most realistic.

Cameron pulled out all the stops and I commend him for a not only producing and directing an artistically beautiful film but also proving that a basically geek's movie can please a large audience.

"Avatar" results for the week, domestic:

Avatar Fox $137,268,000

with world-wide box office, that mean the film has surpassed it's cost (of course, profits are distributed between the studio, distributors and the theaters).

it has been reported that the American contracts read that the theater keeps almost none of the first week ticket revenue, they get concession sales only. As the weeks progress the theater company keeps a progressively larger slice of the rev.

As I've understoood, it is less that 10% and gradually rises to 20% if the film has a long run. Of course, the theaters won't renew the rental past the initial run if it's a flop.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/

this was 2002, I believe that the first week is now more to the studio, but cant prove it at the moment. As is mentioned, the theater does not keep 20-30% first week, their is often a middle man to be paid.

Watched an Interview with Cameron on Attack of the Show on G4tv where Cameron stated that several film makers have already been in talks with him about buying a few of his cameras. I wouldn't be surprised to see some new 3d films by someone other then Cameron int he coming year.

That's the studio's take but there are other hands on the money before it actually reaches the screen and you're sitting down to watch it. The distributor takes the largest chunk and then there's the overhead of the theater. I don't remember who spends the most money on promoting the film, the studio or the distributor but I would guess the studio. If the theater ends up with as much as 10%, that's a respectable profit. The variable here is the film that opens poorly and is gone after four to six weeks (the critic's quip about "straight to video"). The number of screens that hold up over a four to six weeks initial run is important -- it means the theaters are still paying the rentals in confidence they're making more money. Of course, the money per theater drops, too, so the overhead starts eating up a larger percentage and the distributor's rental fee drop. A lot of this has to do with the 1948 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Paramount Pictures, et al, finally took on the Hollywood studios, and effectively brought an end to the studio system of classic cinema. This Great Hollywood Antitrust Case was actually two major suits -- the other against MGM Lowe's State Theaters. In cash terms, a blockbuster ends up with about 40% to 60% of the profit for the studio. At the rate "Avatar" is racking up tickets sales, especially in advance at Fandango.com, and the indicated that there is a lot of repeat attendance, I wouldn't doubt it ends up more towards the 60%. I really has to reach $ 1 billion to make an appreciable profit, but I'm betting this film reaches at least $ 2 billion. Since DVD sales are down (partly because of the transition to Blu-Ray), studios have to rely more on the theater profit.

Every studio has been methodically (not feverishly) developing their own 3-D cameras in conjunction with IMAX (which is, after all, a separate company who makes the projection equipment). It won't be that long before there will be no reels being hand delivered to a theater -- it will be digitally transferred by cable or satellite.

While reading through RottenTomatoes reviews, I get the distinct impression that reviewers are trying desperately to like this film. Even the Ripe Tomato reviews all contain a disclaimer about the weak story.

One concise review said, "A wonder to Behold, a story to forget".

When 75% of those who see a movie would recommend it to their friends the movie works. Period.

If i get outta this hospital today or tomorrow im going to go see it the day I get out!

You read all of the reviews and they all contained a "disclaimer" about a "weak story?" Are you reading the Rotten Tomatoes facing page of critics or the top critics? I haven't read all of them but there's no consensus about the story being weak, but that it's been told before and several times because it's been told better than most in "Avatar." Sci-fi started and built on the advantage of being able to tell a story which involved a scientific viewpoint, not just for technological tinker-toys and promotion of science, but to tell a human story in a totally different light. A respectable literature critic up until the 70's didn't even want to consider it literature. I think it's a better movie than "Dances With Wolves," despite the funny fractured titles on that films title, better than many anti-war films that haven't been really all that anti-war as they're cracked up to be (like "Apocalypse Now.") There's not many "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "Paths of Glory" (incidentally not an adaptation but written by Stanley Kubrick). The best critics mostly laud the delivery of the anti-war, anti-racist, anti-xenophobe, et al theme (there's really a multi-faceted message in the movie). I can barely count on my fingers and toes movies who have a story I can say is memorable -- mainly because they're nearly all derived from literature, whether credited as an adaptation or not. Like I stated before, as far as sci-fi, I've read this story before in 40's and 50's books and magazines.

I haven't forgotten the parts of this story before in literature that's mainstream or sci-fi from the past and didn't mind revisiting it in it's new frame. The right frame can make an artwork more appreciable than it might have been before in another frame or no frame at all.

I think the critic who came as close to my response to the film and doesn't make a broad point to excuse it for its story but is really more objective than most:

'Avatar' is an epic adventure - and great fun

By Steven Rea

Inquirer Movie Columnist and Critic

Two alternate titles come to mind when watching Avatar, the modest little indie by way of James "King of the World" Cameron: How about Runs With Na'vis, or Flies With Banshees?

The filmmaker's epic adventure - which cost upward of $230 million and, actually, happens to be great fun - is the gamer generation's answer to Dances With Wolves. It's a trippy sci-fi tale about an ex-Marine, trained to fight an indigenous people, who comes to understand the tribal culture in ways that make him terribly conflicted about annihilating them.

He falls in love, discovers their spiritual connection to nature, and finds himself at odds with his gung-ho superiors.

In Dances With Wolves (1990), it's Kevin Costner's U.S. Cavalry officer who insinuates himself into the world of the Lakota Sioux. In Avatar, it's Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a member of the "Jarhead Clan," who learns the ways of the Na'vi - a blue-skinned, NBA-tall race of humanoids living in paradise on the planet Pandora. The Na'vi, who resemble buff, pointy-eared runway models, live in a lush rain forest teeming with exotic beasts, including those aforementioned banshees - flying reptile-like creatures that Na'vi warriors must bond with in a rite of passage.

And it's at that point in Cameron's two-hour, 41-minute marvel - when Sully's Na'vi avatar and his female friend Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) take to the air, astride winged banshees - that Cameron's long-borning baby really kicks in. It's like a runner hitting the Zone: All of a sudden, the movie, with its elaborate motion-capture technology (real actors' movements and gestures turned into computer-generated images), breaks into a new dimension - even if you're not watching in 3-D. (Avatar is being released in multiple formats: 3-D, Real-D, IMAX, and lowly, old-fashioned 2-D.)

Set in 2154, Avatar begins with Sully, who is paralyzed from the waist down (there have been military conflagrations in Nigeria and Venezuela, if you're keeping track), set to replace his dead twin brother in an avatar program on faraway Pandora. Climb into a pod, hook up the circuitry, and let your mind and body enter a Na'vi alter ego.

It's a last-ditch effort led by Dr. Grace Augustine (a butt-smokin' Sigourney Weaver) and her group of science nerds to befriend "the indigenous" with these human/Na'vi hybrids. If they fail, the private military force led by Col. Miles Quaritch (a cartoonish Stephen Lang), will start killing the Na'vi and defoliating their Eden.

Why? Because they're sitting on mounds of Unobtainium (sounds like something from Rocky and Bullwinkle!) - a mineral vital to Earth's energy needs. Giovanni Ribisi is the squirrelly industrialist overseeing the rape and pillage.

Avatar isn't deep: It has an obvious antiwar, tree-hugging message, and its characters are literally and figuratively archetypes. But Worthington, in both his human and Na'vi incarnations, makes the transition from warmonger to peacenik more than believable. One of Avatar's many brilliant strokes is to have its hero in a wheelchair: When his avatar-self starts running barefoot through the jungles, as agile as a cat, it's exhilarating and liberating - for both Sully and the audience.

(Early on in Dances With Wolves, Costner's Lt. Dunbar is in danger of having his leg amputated - go figure.)

Cameron is not a filmmaker to shy away from spectacle and the gizmos to deliver it. The first two Terminators, Aliens (with Weaver), The Abyss, and, of course, Titanic, all cost plenty, but with the exception of The Abyss, they sold more than enough tickets to make up for the expenditure. Whether Avatar recoups its outsize production and marketing outlays is a topic for the business wags to mull.

For the folks who plunk down their dollars (and pick up the plastic 3-D glasses), Avatar delivers. Combining beyond-state-of-the-art moviemaking with a tried-and-true storyline and a gamer-geek sensibility - not to mention a love angle, an otherworldly bestiary, and an arsenal of 22d-century weaponry - the movie quite simply rocks.

End of quote

Of course, I can go back (if I wanted to) and pull out-of-context barbs from critics who decided before they went to the film, they weren't going to like it.
No one should hate themselves for enjoying this film, even if it could be qualified as a guilty pleasure (which it isn't). I think us sci-fi fans and readers forget that the general movie audience hasn't been exposed or enthused about sci-fi writings actually until "Star Wars" which wasn't all that long ago. I'm not all that astonished and I'm expecting most sci-fi films to be more space opera than potently serious sci-fi.

I respect rosborne a lot but I think there's a bit of self-inflicted nit-picking guilt here. It's almost like an alcoholic who takes a small sip of champagne and then feels guilty about it. Hey, buddy -- you stopped at the sip, just don't drink any more. Please, ros, don't go back to see this film. We'll have to intervene and send you to sci-fi rehab.

I have now seen the movie twice. It's a great movie, a comic book in your lap.
Joe(go see it)Nation

LOL -- if you have ever had an IMAX screen in your lap, did you have room for popcorn?

Some of the best movies tap into the inner child -- I know that's been a cliche forever so I prefer the psychological "don't be adultish." Despite the adult message which is certainly not subliminal, it's very much "The Wizard of Oz" as much as "Dances With Wolves."