New Avatar trailer is the real deal

[Dreddz]

Two of those are anime and the other sucks. Never said Avatar was the first movie to have a mech with a knife anyway so why bother posting those?

And yes, you need to see this movie in 3D.

[rubah]

I think perhaps I will see this movie before I have the chance to be very upset about the possibly racial implications. Ignorance is bliss, and I want to feel the bliss of this digital world fall around me.

[I Took the Red Pill]

So this movie has absolutely zero things going for it then? Bull. The plot is predictable but the execution is still done well. The characters are all fun to watch (even Stephen Lang with his sometimes laughable dialogue). And even if all of that still doesn't do it for you, then what about the action? Or the 3D? Come on, its amazing.

Oh, and need I remind you that this movie has a mech with a friggin knife. I guess only a true nerd would be able to appreciate that.

Where did I say it had absolutely nothing going for it? I said I was ridiculously bored of it and it didn't meet the expectations I had for it, but I didn't say it had nothing going for it. As a tech-demo, it sure was impressive, but I mean come on if you spend nearly half a billion dollars total on the movie then you'd better have some pretty explosions. The 3D was boring and only served to hurt my eyes when I tried to strain them to focus on anything that wasn't in the foreground. I would disagree with the claim that the characters were fun to watch. In fact Stephen Lang's character was probably my favorite to watch just because I laughed at about nearly every line or overacted motion he initiated. I found the plot horribly paced, one minute it's dragging out a part of the storyline needlessly, and then in the next it's zooming through some of the important parts. I also suffixed my post saying a lot of people enjoyed the movie, and that is great. Good for them. I am saying that personally I did not enjoy the movie and that I was disappointed, but the fact that you enjoyed it is cool for you, dued. I just don't think it's this piece of award-deserving, cinematic art when in reality it is just the same old story everyone has seen in 100000 movies and 100000 videogames with some mindblowingly expensive SFX slapped on.

[Boney King]

I just don't think it's this piece of award-deserving, cinematic art when in reality it is just the same old story everyone has seen in 100000 movies and 100000 videogames with some mindblowingly expensive SFX slapped on.

I completely agree with this statement. That being said, the expensive SFX really did look expensive.

[Academic]

I swear this is Pocahontas.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so.

For a good portion of this movie, I felt like I was watching the live-action/CGI version.

I'll just post what I thought about it from another forum:

Wasn't exactly disappointed, but there was definitely a lot of unnecessary hype. I'd seen the story done before. The dialogue wasn't anything special and kind of pissed me off at times. The acting was pretty good, but not amazing. I did enjoy the graphics, though that seemed to be the highlight of the film. It did get a little long and drawn out. Had they done the story better or given me something innovative to stick around for, I doubt I'd've considered it an issue.

There were so many things they could have done better or different to take it over the edge, and yet they spent so much money to do stuff I'd seen dozens of times before.

[Slothy]

Hmm, that was a painfully cliched scene, not to mention the cgi is even worse on that monster thing. I actually don't want to watch it now that I've seen that!

LIES! Ok in all seriousness whats not to like? It was intense enough watching it on Youtube, imagine what it'll be like in Imax 3D. I like how the action was displayed so smoothly instead of this shaky cam crap which has plagued almost every action movie since the Bourne Identity.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen the movie or much more than the two videos you posted here. To be honest though, that second video highlights some little things that really bother me with the look of the movie.

The first is the movement of those humanoid dudes and now the giant creature in that video. When they move it just seems unnatural. It's hard to put your finger on, but that giant creature for example just seems to defy the laws of physics with how quickly it moves. The thing feels like it has no weight to it; something that big shouldn't be jumping around and accelerating that fast. Now you can try to excuse it by saying things like it's an alien planet and the creature is obviously not something you'd find on Earth, but the problem is that when you take the movement of something that far outside the experience of the audience it just looks wrong, and even if you can't say why, a lot of people will notice.

My other problem is the little interactions with the environment. When the humanoid guy runs, there are plants brushing aside and swaying as he runs through them, but it doesn't look right either. Either it's bad collision detection or it's simply that they tried to hand animate it and they couldn't do it right.

Now does this ruin the experience? Not totally. The 3D still looks great, and that's certainly the best CGI water effects I've ever seen even if it's not perfect, but I can't watch something like this that's supposed to be a lush near photo-realistic world and not notice the subtle things that take me out of the visuals. A lot of it you may never notice because it goes to fast or the focus isn't on it, but that scene really bothered me because I did pick up on the little things almost because the rest is so good.

I still want to see the final film eventually, but I'm not getting my hopes up for something earth shattering, even technologically, though I'm sure the new filming techniques will gain acceptance in the industry.

[Dreddz]

The first is the movement of those humanoid dudes and now the giant creature in that video. When they move it just seems unnatural. It's hard to put your finger on, but that giant creature for example just seems to defy the laws of physics with how quickly it moves. The thing feels like it has no weight to it; something that big shouldn't be jumping around and accelerating that fast. Now you can try to excuse it by saying things like it's an alien planet and the creature is obviously not something you'd find on Earth, but the problem is that when you take the movement of something that far outside the experience of the audience it just looks wrong, and even if you can't say why, a lot of people will notice.

I think because the Na'vi are lanky it kind of makes their movements look a little stiff. I can assure you that everything seems to move naturally when watching the film. At least in my opinion. The way I see it is this, the movie isn't trying to be 100% realistic in terms of what is physically possible but it is trying to convince you that it is happening right in front of you. What this does is it gives you a very distorted view on reality which you accept as real which ultimately makes the movie quite a surreal experience to watch. You have to stop comparing it to real life and just go with it.

I still want to see the final film eventually, but I'm not getting my hopes up for something earth shattering, even technologically, though I'm sure the new filming techniques will gain acceptance in the industry.

What you need to understand is that what you have seen so far only stratches the surface of what is in the actual film. The last hour of the movie is what truly sets this film apart from other films. Up untill that point you feel as though the technology used hasn't really served its purpose but when you see the scale of some of the scenes near the end of the film you understand why this film is so revolutionary.

[McLovin']

Most realistic movie I've ever seen. They should make games have this feature, would be amazing.

[Skyblade]

Listening to the reviews, does the movie have anything going for it except the graphics? Sure, everyone comments on how well the CGI is done, but I haven't heard anything about the quality of the characters, the dialogue, or anything else except the graphics. I mean, I haven't heard a single line of dialogue quoted from this movie.

The CGI may be impressive, but as technology progresses, it will get old fast, and the graphics will be seen to be just as forgettable as the rest of the movie.

[Dreddz]

This film is not something that will be forgotten about anytime soon. I could talk about this film in detail if I really wanted but I don't wanna spoil it. Ill just say that it has a strong emotional backbone which definitely leaves an impression with you. And Stephen Lang is just plain awesome as Quatrich. Worth seeing this film for his performance alone.

[Miriel]

Listening to the reviews, does the movie have anything going for it except the graphics? Sure, everyone comments on how well the CGI is done, but I haven't heard anything about the quality of the characters, the dialogue, or anything else except the graphics. I mean, I haven't heard a single line of dialogue quoted from this movie.

The CGI may be impressive, but as technology progresses, it will get old fast, and the graphics will be seen to be just as forgettable as the rest of the movie.

Here's the two things I've heard most about this film: A) The visuals are incredible, and B) The storyline is predictable, cliche, and slightly racist.

And after seeing the film, that basically sums up everything. The only notable performance was Zoe Saldana's who managed to shine through even with a blue alien layered over her. That being said, it's still an entertaining film. There will be moments where you'll sort of smirk at the predictability of the story which has already been told in Last Samurai (a god awful film), Dancing with Wolves, Pocahontas, etc. But the visuals and the action sequences are enough to keep you entertained for the 2 hour and 40 minute show.

[Dreddz]

I honestly don't understand why everyone goes on about the story. The overarching story is familar territory but the events that occur throughout the story are unique to the film. And didn't District 9 basically have the same story as Avatar? Why isn't everyone attacking that film for its originality. Oh right, the public are stupid.

[Miriel]

District 9 was SO much more nuanced than Avatar.

In Avatar (as in Last Samurai, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas), you have a white dude originally aligned with greedy/imperialistic forces who seek to destroy the native people. Dude (SPOILER)falls in love with the chief's daughter (how much more cliche can you get?) and proceeds to not only become assimilated into the native society, but (SPOILER)he becomes their leader.

There are several things in avatar that are seen over and over again in cinema, which is why people call it predictable.

The native people (whether they be Japanese, Native American, Na'vi) are technologically weaker than whatever forces they're up against. Typically there's a nature vs. technology element in there too, with the native peoples being more in tune with nature, spirituality, etc. And the ones aligned with nature will always be the good guys.

There are a couple elements in regards to race in Avatar that keeps springing up elsewhere in cinema as well, and I found it kind of fascinating the predictability of it.

1) The superethnicity of whiteness (i.e. White people are capable of doing anything just as good as natives/ethnic people - in most cases even better than the people who teach them these skills. IE: Jake Sully being able to (SPOILER)capture the giant bird at the end, leading to the Na'vi people to literally bow down to him.)
2) Ethnic characters serving Whiteness (by either being defeated in combat or displaying weaker skills. In Avatar (SPOILER)it seemed that the only reason the various tribes rallied together was due to Jake's influence. They fought for him, and died in the process. )
3) Rejection of hostility towards White characters (Anyone who is hostile towards the white Protagonist is either forced to accept them or usually defeated/killed (Kocoum in Pocahontas, (SPOILER)Tsu'Tey in Avatar))
4) Ethnic "cohort" serves white protagonist (i.e. Mr. Miyagi or any sort of "teacher" role, who guides the protagonist into the ethnic culture/society)

You can see every one of these elements in Avatar. These are cinematic elements that are SO common, that there are classes in film schools devoted to studying this Captain Whitey-save-a-minorty phenomenon.

Personally, I really do think it's so interesting how filmmakers consciously or unconsciously play into these predictable storylines, and the social/psychological implications behind the decision to do so.

On the flip side, in District 9, you have a man who actively fights AGAINST becoming an alien. He hates them, he fights it the whole way. And in the end, he does not become their hero. He is unlikable for much of the film, and the intelligent one in the film is actually the alien, he was so tempted to betray. You'll notice that much of the elements which makes Avatar so predictable don't exist in District 9. There is no inter-racial/species love story, no heroification of the protagonist, no helpful native to guide him on the journey, etc. It doesn't follow the typical storyline AT ALL.

[/end "omg you're analyzing it too much!!" post]

[Madame Adequate]

Last Samurai (a god awful film)

Wat

[McLovin']

It looked awesomely gorgeous. Nuff said.