Reader Poll: Vote on the ‘Avatar’ Trailer
by Big Hollywood
–
Hard to argue the “Avatar” trailer didn’t disappoint when the film’s star is forced to do this kind of damage control:
“It’s interesting that [Cameron] released that trailer and then the next day goes and shows it on IMAX,” Worthington said of the 16-minute preview released on August 21st in IMAX theaters. “One extreme to the other. We get the criticism, and then we get the rave reviews of what it really looks like in its own formula. That’s obviously going to get people to think and go, ‘Well, damn right. I’m going to go see this at the cinema.’ Jim has always said to me he wants to bring people back to the movies. And he’s a smart enough man to be tactical.”
Worthington added that he has read lots of comments about the trailer and understands the disappointment. “It’s got a hell of a lot of hype,” he said. “I read all what was said yesterday about the trailer. I can see their point. But, as I said, it wasn’t meant to be built for an Apple Mac. It’s built for IMAX. It’s built for 3-D.“
Now that we’ve all had time to view the trailer and mull the reaction, it’s poll time:
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
397 Comments
Wait, so I have to see this on a giant IMAX screen in 3D to like it? Wow, nothing says "weak content" like that kind of sales pitch. The story sounds boring, even annoying(I didn't like Dances With Wolves either , so there's that too). The character designs are absolutely nothing special. And yes, it does look like a video game.
I don't care about hype. If it's good, it's good. I remember when Tim Burton's Batman was released. The hype was unbelievable. I still loved the movie.
Would have been nice to have an option between "over-hyped but still interested" and "looks like a video game." I think the animation looks good but the movie is still over-hyped and I'm not interested in watching a movie about how humans destroy the ecology wherever they go and bashing the military.
Perhaps it was assumed, but as someone who enjoys an occasional video game I would have added adjective to the last choice – it looks like a *boring* video game.
I would judge this trailer (and I suppose the film) on three points:
Technical execution
Validity
World View
Technically I would say that it is very well done and beautiful if not sometimes visually overwhelming.
As for validity I suppose this film conforms to Mr. Cameron's world view and he really believes in the final product and is not just regurgitating somebody else's work. Although yes, it does seem to be Dances With Wolves with blue aliens. So, is it valid? Meh…
The worldview of this film is, to me, repugnant. Rousseau's noble savage is murdered by the "mean-ol" military and for what? Filthy lucre of course.
The heartily raised middle finger to the military (and by extension America) is obvious. I reject the world view of the film and ultimately it is what, I think , ruins a visually compelling film.
I think "Titanic" did James Cameron in and he caved into the Hollyweird culture. Compare this to the first "Terminator" with its defense of human survival and "Aliens" where the military (aside from the corrupt coorporate government character) are tough as nails likable.
For all the jibber-jabber about Avatar's' "amazingly ground breaking life changing will-cure-blindness-in-puppies" special effects: what little snippets I've seen from the WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE teaser has impressed me more.
I thought the trailer was wonderful…when I saw it in the theater. Obviously it had a little more impact than the quicktime movie I saw beforehand. The building music and avoidance of other popular preview clichés make me believe that this is going to be something special–especially in 3d. I'll be able to put aside the political messages for a few hours and just have a good time with it. James Cameron rarely disappoints.
So what they seem to be saying is, if you aren't seeing it at an IMAX theatre, don't bother.
Right?
I think I'll pass.
I don't know about this video game comparison. Sometimes when I'm out on the lake and I see a fantastic sunset, or an imposing power plant in the distance I think, that's so CGI. I dont know how those ridiculous looking cat people could look more real. Now Garfield on the other hand! Jeesh, if I saw that big eyed monstrosity in real life I'd kill it with a rake or sickle. I dont own a sickle. I'd get one though. Steel my lassagna, you cgi beast….
John Nolte recently wrote an article damning the shakey cam to hell (I'm with ya, John). I think CGI should go with it.
My complaints are about story, not graphics. We've already had at least one other "Humans are the invading bad guys of alien paradise" story just in the last year!
I agree the film will be visually stunning but why should I, or anyone for that matter, have to put aside the entire message of the film in order to enjoy it?
In other words, if you ignore what the entire movie is about…it should be enjoyable.
Looks good, stop bitchin.
I would tend to agree. It's beautiful, but given the amount of money Cameron spent on it, it better be pretty. I saw pretty pictures in that trailer. What I didn't see was any hint that the story involved could hold my attention for even 30 minutes, let alone 2+ hours. Gorgeous scenery does not make a play.
As much as I enjoyed "Terminator" and "Aliens", they both have liberal mindsets. "Terminator" is pretty blatant about how man's devotion to technology will destroy both him and the planet. In "Aliens" the marines are completely dismissive of Ripley and what she has to tell them and the only marines to survive are those who show Ripley some respect. They're tough and likable but they're also stupid.
Oh goody…more eye-candy!
I agree. Shakey-cam gives me migraines. CGI just pisses me off.
Just look at Disney movies pre cgi and disney movies now. Is anyone going to be excited over Finding Nemo's 10th anniversary? But Cinderella, Snow White? 50 years old (at least) and still classics. Disney used to be known for beautiful animation. Now they're known for deep pockets and marketing.
Possibly the most visually amazing thing I have ever seen
nuff said
Wow. As I recall, the Marines are dismissive of Ripley…until the Aliens start eating everyone. Then they come around real quick. And it's a horror flick–there's no way they'd all have survived. Terminator liberal? Seriously? It's against only _evil_ robots, IMHO. I would think it's more a message of responsibility–don't trust machines with what you should be doing yourself.
Actually only the corporate backstabber and the still wet behind the ears Lt. are dismissive of Ripley. The troops – once she's shown she willing to work beside them – give her a measure of respect.
In any case, this just seems like a another, in a long line of "Evil Militaristic Earth Men vs Noble Savages" movie.
I think they will. Nemo was a really charming film. Pixar does a wonderful job–all their stuff has resonated well with adults and kids since Toy Story. Someone who saw and loved it when they were 5 will love it as much as we loved the classics when we saw them at 5. And c'mon–Disney has always marketed itself with laser-like precision. I had Disney sheets and lunchboxes when I was little in ye olden days (early 70's), and Disneyland was always a magical mecca. Mickey Mouse Club, the Sunday Magical World of DIsney–they've always been marketing masters, they just have more platforms to work with today.
I think it started well before "Titanic". Just look at "The Abyss".
You might appreciate this: http://gizmodo.com/5287578/george-lucas-then-vs-g...
Ooh – I think you're overreaching a bit with Terminator there. Sure, it's obviously got a pretty heavy anti-nukes stance, but I think that's more just a function of the story than of any particular political viewpoint. And I don't think an anti-technology stance is necessarily a liberal viewpoint any more than it's a conservative one.
But since we're talking about it, here's my take: You've got a pretty clear-cut defense of the right to bear arms and the ultimate helplessness of the state to defend the individual. Think of how utterly worthless and/or harmful the police and the state (Pescadero/Dr. Silverman) are, in both films. There's a mother absolutely devoted to raising her child as she sees fit, because she knows best. And you've got a message about the importance of a two-parent family with a strong father figure.
The problem isn't so much the special effects as the storyline which is lame — "Dances With Wolves" in space?
There's no call for the poll to insult video games. Games like Batman: Arkham Asylum and the upcoming Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed II and Splinter Cell: Conviction look way better that the crap footage in the trailer. Besides, those aliens look tremendously off-putting. There's something about their faces that just makes me wanna shove a shotgun into their ugly mouths and pull the trigger.
I believe Ronald D. Moore (after he left Star Trek but before he developed Battlestar Galactica) tried to make Pern into a TV series. From Wikipedia (your mileage may vary):
During this time, Moore also developed a pilot based on Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern for The WB, but production on the project was halted due to 'creative differences' between Moore and the network. The network tried changing the story (without Moore's approval) until it didn't resemble the original book series. Moore was an original fan of the books, and refused to continue working on the pilot with the changes being made. He forfeited and gave the series rights back to Anne McCaffrey.
Well, maybe this is a portent of things to come: pretty soon, EVERYTHING will be CGI, and actors will go the way of the dodo
And 'cause it's a slow day at work and I love the movie, here are my thoughts on Aliens: There's certainly the persistent and tiring "big corporations are heartless and EVVVILLLL" meme, the Marines are a little less professional (cough, Bill Paxton, cough) than one would expect from a supposed elite unit, and yes, they should have listened to Ripley a bit earlier, seeing as how she's the only one to have encountered this enemy before and lived.
But Paxton's "comic" relief aside, they're tough-as-nails, brave, and respectful of the civilian in their midst, even if they don't take her advice. Once they realize what they're up against, they get it together and kick some ass, against pretty long odds. I guess you could take away a certain "big bad military against the 'natives' thing," (Ripley's "You don't see them screwing each other over for a profit.") but all-in-all, Cameron's military comes across about as well as could be expected under such conditions. Even freakin' Lt. Gorman comes around.
I remember talk of the series; thanks for the info on why it never went. It's a shame though–while it's had its quality ups & downs over the years, the early novels are still superb and it could be done so beautifully with the tech we have now!
Ugh! I actually dislike that trailer! (seen it large twice now) The Wild Things themselves creep me out…something about the 'real' voices they gave them, and the big heads–no charm to me at all for some reason. Also (and I have no kids so what do I know) they look so 'real' as to be nightmare inducing–those suckers could eat the kid in one bite!
I've got no argument with phasing out excessive and bad CGI in live-action films – it's distracting and allows directors to be over-indulgent, and ultimately just looks fake.
But for animated films, I've got no problem with it. It's certainly a different look and feel than hand-drawn animation, but it also allows for a greater range and freedom and detail. And when the whole film is animated, the CGI isn't nearly as distracting.
Jeez! They're just big eared n' blue! Is that a crime??! ;-D I think they're more appealing than the District 9 aliens, that's for sure!
Agreed re the Abyss – nice, entertaining, atmospheric film with a good cast, for about 1h 45 min, but then there's that terrible, terrible ending. Good grief.
This movie will just blow my mind. James Cameron knows exactly what he's doing. There isn't a movie he has made that wasn't fantastically entertaining. Will there be flaws, of course – but will it blow my mind, YES.
Yes, I got tired of the whole lecture, too
Well, when I watched Bambi as a kid, I kinda rooted for the hunters…..
It's an insult to say that this looks like a video game. As an avid gamer, I'll drool over the latest trailers, over the detail, the expressions, the environments. No such reactions here. That may be tainted by the "aliens (any group, ever, that's backwards)=good, humanity (read usa)=bad and warmongering theme behind the film, but mostly it's a graphics problem.
And if you say it looks like a video game, you're not paying attention to the gaming world at all. We've reached the point where game rendering is equal, and in many cases superior, to CG films. Watch someone play the newest Prince of Persia game (or better yet, play it yourself) and you'll see what I mean.
This is helped by the fact that the new era of video games understand what Avatar doesn't. The size of the screen should have no bearing on the feeling of the epic. I get just as many chills watching the newest final fantasy trailer on my macbook, as I do playing it on my 17" tv as I do playing it on my friend's big screen. Content and quality, not size, matters.
[...] Vote on the Avatar trailer. Win…an Internet or something. [BigHollywood] [...]
Anyone who thinks this looks like a video game is out of there minds. Show me a game with graphics 1/1000 as good as Avatars amazing animation and I will sell you everything I own
[...] here: Reader Poll: Vote on the ‘Avatar’ Trailer This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Whenever the Abyss is on TV, I'll watch it (that purposeful drowning scene by Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is damn powerful and terrifying) but I always change the channel at the end because of that awful ending. "2001" did it better and it was a mess itself.
Are you talking about those cantina pupputs whose eyes don't blink and faces don't ever move. Yeah very realistic.(sarcasm) That could remotely compare to the amazing facial animation in Avatar in fantasy land.
CG haters are a pathetic nostagic bunch who probaby were advocating movie remain without color and sound. Things evolve so should you
Hah! Fair enough…so I guess you were the only child who cheered at the beginning of Babar when the hunter kills his mother, too?
Any game can look as amazing as Avatar with that amount of computing power behind it but that's not the point. The point is that games these days are incredibly immersive and feel more 'real' than what we've seen in Avatar. As one example, check out cutscene footage of the alien 'Elite' in this Halo Wars clip (at the 2:52 mark – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwh2_ssqHIo) Now I'd definitely pay for a movie with aliens like that!
The setup of the movie's storyline is bugging me:
-Why would humans spend the trillions of dollars required to fly at faster than light speeds to another star system in order to move a significant portion of our population onto a world with a poisonous atmosphere?
-Why would we spend trillions more to bioengineer and grow "avatars" for every human on that planet that would then allow the transfer of human consciousness into the avatar (which also cannot be an inexpensive process) just so we wouldn't have to wear breathing equipment?
-Why is the atmosphere so poisonous to human beings? If you say: "there's too much/too little oxygen" then why is there so much green leafy flora shown in the preview?
-What is the source of the CO2 on the planet if none of the native fauna aspirate oxygen/exhale carbon dioxide? Obviously there can't be any significant carbon dioxide on that planet because the Republican and their e-e-e-e-vil corporate henchmen haven't shown up yet to cause environmental damage.
Look, I shouldn't be the one asking these questions because I have a liberal arts degree… but if I'm smart enough about basic physics, chemistry, biology, and economics then why didn't anyone else associated with this $200 million production think to ask any of these questions *before* actors were on the set and cameras rolled?
It looks like a cross between Starship Troopers and The Dark Crystal. I am not optimistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuNUR5vKMKQ
Maybe not the best example to see range of emotion in a puppet suit, but it's a great scene.
Compare Qui-gonn Jinn vis-a-vis Jar Jar Binks in the scene where everyone is eating at Anakin's house. Liam Neeson is a skilled actor, and is interactions with the real people are good. But anytime someone has to manhandle a cgi creation, it looks wrong.
Color and sound were great additions to the filmmaker's toolbox. They helped the story progress. CGI has been used to help the story, but more often than not, movies seem to be more about the technology used to create the story than the story itself.
If people spent more time writing a good story and less time individually animating each individual pore on an alien, I'd have no complaints.
Who cares how pretty it is if the story is regurgitated material?
From my video game days, I recall this phenomenon being names "the pallette swap." You take the same character design, slap some new colors on the skin, and voila–a brand new character. The colors may be prettier, but it's still just an excuse to be lazy. With computers doing all the work, people can just sit back, phone it in, and collect a paycheck.
Besides crappy CGI – it's also confusing as hell. When I first saw this trailer, I had to read the postings of every one else to realize that the crippled guy in the wheelchair had been transplanted into the alien's body. And I was thinking that perhaps the space ships had fallen to earth because the first shots of the forest looked like earth – but then came the shots of the tree-laden rocks floating in midair so I suppose – duh – we're talking outer space. In other words, folks, I was asking WTF was going on here?
So there you have it. Crappy CGI that looks like a cheap video game and a 'story' that I can't make heads nor tails of. This film is going to so totally suck!
Hand animation felt like art–unique, painstakingly crafted material that had a real human behind it. CGI, even in a full-cgi movie like Finding Nemo–feels like a computer program. Cold. Lifeless. A Flounder smile has a heart. A Nemo smile just has Call smile().
i,m saving my money on this one. Would play the game but will skip the movie. Putting the "invaders" in USMC T-shirts is the last straw- You're welcome for your freedom, Cameron.
This is actually the final nail in coffin of my faith in any baby boomer director. I loved District 9, and it was made by 29-year-olds. Chris Nolan is my age (about forty) and he made The Dark Knight. The younger directors are producing movies that are intended to entertain rather than teach, and do what Hollywood used to do, which is affirm the values of the moviegoers rather than denigrate them. Cameron, even though up until now he was my favorite director of all time, has come right out and said he's going to lecture me on how we have something to learn from primitive cultures. I personally think the only honest look at primitive cultures I've seen in the last 10 years is Apocalypto– that's what life is like without the rule of law and technology. But that aside, the fact that I disagree, it's still a theme I've yawned at dozens of times before. And I cannot come up with a rationale for Cameron to have said it was Dances with Aliens when it really isn't. That's what I'm expecting.
I personally will see it anyway, out of the regard i have for his previous work (including Titanic, which in my view had only one major flaw, in the casting of DiCaprio in the lead). But I'm going in the distant hope that it will redeem itself somehow, and to make a final decision about whether I'll ever see one of his movies in the theater again. I've got a limit on how much emotional abuse i'm willing to tolerate from Hollywood after several years of it. He is the last director born before 1964 that I have any regard for. I expect to lose it in December.
The poll should be changed to add: "Piece of prejudice inducing hateful crap, not interested." And: "Just, lame."
Not to be confused with the movie "The Last Air Bender" by M.Knight Shamalan,
http://www.thelastairbendermovie.com/
Thundercats aren't go!
Actually two movies with the same story line, Battle for Terra was the other.
When I think if IMAX, I think if two words: stiff neck. It loses its charm in 15 minutes.
That's the one I was referring to! If there are three, what's the third one you are thinking of?
All right….who's lurking in this thread and "thumbs-down"-ing everyone's posts??
Cameron!
Is that you?
If you want to see this story done right, then read John Scalzi's "Old Man's War
Another anti-war film showing the transformation of volunteer soldier to native refusenik.
Okami. 'Nuff said.
do you have issues with her son's new ones too? I love Pern, but the one where her son took over was pathetic ( and I've stopped reading them). Sigh.
It's like saying "This turd will look better in HD".
No need to put in a cheap shot about video games… I thought that option was a positive until I realized it was meant negatively.
So basically, there's no option for "I'm not seeing this biased movie and giving my money to it's support."
Personally, I think it looks good, but the plot stinks. Also, it doesn't live up to hype. I thought it was going to be some amazing film that would blow me away. Instead, it's just another rant against evil humans with a pretty face.
You're preachin' to the choir my man, though I can see not everyone agrees. Ain't America beautiful!
Don't underestimate yourself, you don't need an engineering/science degree to ask these questions.
Luckily, for Mr. Cameron and Hollywood, most people don't remember anything from high school or college.
Also, there's lots of "super KEWL action and lots of SPLOSIONS!
Which makes up for the idiotic and insulting story.
Wasn't this called "Battle for Terra" at one point?
Very mixed…I think I stopped after the first one or two as well…they were also digging waaay deep for Pernese(?) to write about: I'm expecting "The Furniture Strippers of Pern" or "The Baristas of Pern" before too long. I'm scared to see what Herbert's son has done with the Dune sequels, too. And DIck Francis' son should never have been allowed to 'help' dad write a mystery novel!
They're actually currently working on even more Avatar reshoots, by the way…
I thought it looked kinda cool. (Did anyone else read Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern books? That's what the flying things reminded me of. Wish they'd make those into films!) Worth a matinee for sure, even if there's a cliche'd plot under all that $CG.$ I doubt it's going to be a huge game changer–it cost too much, and clearly 3-D is already a profitable trend. I hope people will still take time to find & see Hayao Miyazaki's "Ponyo" before it leaves theaters, though–there's still a warmth and 'soul' to traditional 2-D animation that the finest CG can't convey, even in a movie as sweet and emotional as "Up."
I think movies are leaning towards their end. Financially, they will need to spend more and more to finance these big, impossible films which means they will have to charage more and less people will be able to afford seeing them. Subject wise after finally getting around to more comic book adaptions the only other thing they seem to be able to do is remakes of sequels. In addition to the fact that mentally they are still in the 70s trying to apply that era's politics to what's going on today. But it's not working. It worked great years ago, people still love Aliens and the original Star Wars trilogy, but how big can you make it? How many effects will make it unwatchable to people who don't see it on IMAX and can't afford to see it anyway?
Ooh, nasty hater alert!
At least he showed some sense there. BG was a terrible waste of time.
"Avatar" may be great looking, but so was "Final Fantasy" way back when. That one didn't work out so well, either.
I am predicting movies with "avatar" in the name are going to be less than stellar performers…
The setup of the movie's storyline is bugging me:
-Why would humans spend the trillions of dollars required to fly at faster than light speeds to another star system in order to move a significant portion of our population onto a world with a poisonous atmosphere?
-Why would we spend trillions more to bioengineer and grow "avatars" for every human on that planet that would then allow the transfer of human consciousness into the avatar (which also cannot be an inexpensive process) just so we wouldn't have to wear breathing equipment?
-Why is the atmosphere so poisonous to human beings? If you say: "there's too much/too little oxygen" then why is there so much green leafy flora shown in the preview?
-What is the source of the CO2 on the planet if none of the native fauna aspirate oxygen/exhale carbon dioxide? Obviously there can't be any significant carbon dioxide on that planet because Republicans and their e-e-e-e-vil corporate henchmen haven't shown up yet to cause environmental damage.
Look, I shouldn't be the one asking these questions because I have a liberal arts degree… but if I'm smart enough about basic physics, chemistry, biology, and economics then why didn't anyone else associated with this $200 million production think to ask any of these questions *before* actors were on the set and cameras rolled?
Those blue people look stupid to me. I wouldn't want to become one of them. No chance I'll see this.
My feelings are complicated. First, I am a sucker for the latest CGI and affects I have been known to go to a film just because it was "bleeding edge" for its time. That alone caused me to see movies as great as Matrix and as crappy as "The Last Star Fighter." (I think I just gave away my age.)
I guess I will go see Avatar but I am already totally annoyed by the Cameron's snotty Primitive Peoples==saintly/USA==evil, paint by numbers Lefty morality tale. I have a general principle of not paying to see movies because it will put money in the pockets of Lefty actors and producers who will donate to Obama's election, which results in Obama winning and myself having to go to Tea Parties. (Happy exceptions to this rule was paying to see "Team America" and "An American Carol.")
Anyway, I will be breaking my own rule just to find out what can be done when I watch Avatar. But I will not respect myself in the morning.
Looks like a green weenie"s wet dream. Adam & Eve In Obamaland.
Are you to ignore the Entire plot since the message Is the story from what was shown in the trailer and synopsis? What is it that you will look forward too then? Interesting characters is usually the draw for any movie, but if the message is beaten over your head from the beginning to the end. How could anyone -including yourself- actually enjoy the pounding of rhetoric?
Will you just enjoy the thrill of "3-d"? Or will it be the game console action? In fact, I've watched more than play the PS3 game called 'Metal Gear Solid 4' with it's unending videos that you have limited control over, and now you're to think that the audience will embrace a Full game cinema in sparkly "3-d"?
It's kinda sad that I'll be routing for the Humans laying waste to the natives, rather then the intended "reversal" that will occur in that movie.
'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' placed a aged CGI head of Brad Pitt on a body double. Could you truly tell? The digital actor is coming and 99.999% of the audience will never know until it is revealed. ILM -SFX company that did 'Star Wars'- made a character that looked so real in the second 'Pirates~', I thought they just made a incredible mask instead of it being total CGI. They worked on 'The Curious~' and did an amazing job there too.
Imagine the potential of "digging up" actors long dead and giving them roles in movies. It will Happen.
This always seems to happen.
In 1998, 'Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon' crashed in for attention.
In 1997, 'Dante's Peak' and 'Volcano' emerged from the ground.
In 1996, 'Night of the Twister' and 'Twister' whirled in. Though the former was a mini-series, it was the same idea…
Sometimes it's just some two bit company releasing a direct to DvD aping off of the names like 'Transformers' and changing into 'Transmorphers' to confuse the addled minds of America. My Dad rented that mess to his unending shame! Again, both came out in 2007.
Those examples are off the top of my head, but I've no doubt there's many, many more out there.
Pretty space CGI filled with empty emo-tastic whining.
So many macguffins and "amazing" season cliffhangers that went nowhere. I wrote so many rants.. it's just too much.
Melinda M. Snodgrass was the story editor of the second and third season of '~the Next Generation' and both had some pretty darn good stories told that tied a thin link to each other in regards to the Borg. She championed the episode 'Tin Man', despite the reluctance of the producers >cough< Ronald Moore- and we all got a magnificent Science Fiction story for it. Sadly lacking in most of that series. That cliffhanger with Riker commanding to fire was the best ever done. Sadly, she suffered from the producers continuously and was firmly booted out before the fourth season.
The results speak for themselves.
Oh, and to tie this all up. – 'Avatar' is like cotton candy. Tasty in one small bite, but horrific if gorged.
Well, it's a cinematic for a video game, but I think that counts. http://www.swtor.com/media/trailers/deceived-cine... .
When it comes to the Avatar trailer, I believe Hitler said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg
Warning: contains foul language.
I don't know, there is just something off about the blue aliens. I mean the District 9 prawns I felt some sense of appeal with, mostly because they were shown interacting with a realistic world. I'm with Wong, I took one look at the blue aliens and thought that they looked like a late-level enemy from a sci-fi first person shooter.
I think its the eyes. The prawns pupils weren't as dead-on, made them look more human.
Hey I just noticed an odd similarity. The bad guys in both made a lot more sense then the peacenik hero and story was sacrificed for lame preachiness about how violence is bad (except for when its being used against who the director doesn't like)
Well, I'm sure the impact was different on a large screen. Haven't seen the Avatar trailer large or 3-D, but I'd much rather encounter a blue hippie than a 7-foot cockroach!
Funny you should mention Melinda.
I knew her way, way back when…before even being a lawyer, when she was going to UNM.
It didn't hurt her too much…"Reasonable Doubts" was excellent.
If you ever get a hold of the "VLA" vanity press with her story in it, be prepared for some mild porn…
"Star Trek" aliens…add a bit of latex here and there on a face, and voila, a new good/bad guy!
I HATED that!
Even Gene had enough sense to turn a fog machine into a monster once…then he got a bit lazy, too.
At least in their tiny minds…
And a bit of "Aliens" thrown in…
Now that I really think about it…it looks more and more like James Cameron is lining up his skis over the shark pen…
Well, if they could get Kate Elizabeth Winslet into it and naked, it might work…
I saw the trailer…and I believe this one is going into the wall as well…
Nickelodeon had a PERFECT property in this! ABSOLUTELY PERFECT! My entire family, adults, kids, my autistic son, would sit down and watch Aang and the gang…we would wait expectantly for new chapters, and watch Northern Shaolin, Ba Gua, Hung Gar, Chu Gar Mantis, and Tai Chi being done right. Thank you, Sifu Kisu.
Then they turned it over to that turkey Shamalan, and an opening sequence of a trailer that bodes ill for the entire franchise…a darker, brooding Aang who has no IDEA what Ba Gua is…
They should have just kept it animated…maybe a CGI "Pixar" treatment.
Do like I do…wait for the dollar theater and Netflix…
Sadly the series is over so personally I am happy to see it continued in one form or fashion.
I'll have to take your word for it because I haven't seen any of the movies that you mentioned. As for "digging up" long dead actors, God forbid! The last thing I need is for some fruitloop to do a remake of "Brokeback Mountain" staring John Wayne and Gary Cooper (and you know that's what they'd do). Death to CGI!
Don't forget "Tornado!" staring the great Bruce Campbell.
You must be logged in to post a comment.