Saturday, August 29, 2009

Avatar, Cameron

Imagine being so big in your field that you can go away for over a decade, and when you come back, not only are you remembered, but you have everybody's attention.

James Cameron's Avatar (trailer) looks to me a little comic-booky visually (once we get to the blue aliens in action), but I'll reserve judgment for now. Even if I'd rather shave a porcupine than watch Titanic, I respect him for Terminator I and II.

M Pipolo said:
What about that little 80s film -- what was it called -- "Aliens"!? ;) Very, very good as well.
Also, keep in mind that the rendering for the trailer was quite likely farmed out to a specialized "quickie" team, and there are still months of rendering to do on the actual film before completion. They have the two major effects studios working on it (WETA and ILM), as well as some smaller ones, and I hear it will still be a close call for its December release. 24 hours of rendering per frame per machine. :)
Apparently, those who have seen completed footage from the film say that we should not be judging it by the look of the trailer.


Alien too, yes. (Not Aliens Two, no.) I'd forgotten that was Cameron, not Scott. No wait, One was Scott, Two was Cameron. Admittedly it's been years, but I think I liked One better in this case.

3D, yes. I've never seen it! And certainly not in the posh new versions. It might get me out of the couch.

posted by Eolake Stobblehouse @ Saturday, August 29, 2009   23 comments links to this post

23 Comments:

At 29 Aug 2009, 21:52:00, Blogger Jimbo said...

I liked T2 a lot better than the original although they both rock. Avatar is something I will see when it's out on DVD, I can't see being bothered to go to the movies to see that one. It looks a little too high on the cheese-o-meter for me, and the trailer kind of made me think of a late-1990s video game animation. I prefer to watch movies at home anyway, so even it turns out that I love it, I won't be regretting not having seen it at the movies.

 
At 29 Aug 2009, 21:58:00, Blogger eolake said...

I almost confessed about Inglorious Basterds that I'll wait til the disc comes. I like to take breaks when watching movies.

I agree that T2 was revolutionary.

 
At 29 Aug 2009, 22:08:00, Blogger Jimbo said...

If you have a big enough TV and blu ray (plus a pause button and bathroom a few feet away) it's almost a better experience if you can manage to wait. If it's one you have to see... Well, I have loved all Tarantino's movies and Basterds is the first movie in a long time I've actually got to the movies to see, rather than waiting.

 
At 29 Aug 2009, 23:17:00, Blogger ttl said...

Avatar is shot in 3D. How can you properly project it in your living room?

I expect the screenplay to suck (like all Hollywood movies) but the visuals to be so stunning that's it's worth a watch for that reason alone. Watching it in mono is pointless.

 
At 29 Aug 2009, 23:20:00, Anonymous M. Pipolo said...

"Even if I'd rather shave a porcupine than watch Titanic, I respect him for Terminator I and II."

What about that little 80s film -- what was it called -- "Aliens"!? ;) Very, very good as well.

Also, keep in mind that the rendering for the trailer was quite likely farmed out to a specialized "quickie" team, and there are still months of rendering to do on the actual film before completion. They have the two major effects studios working on it (WETA and ILM), as well as some smaller ones, and I hear it will still be a close call for its December release. 24 hours of rendering per frame per machine. :)

Apparently, those who have seen completed footage from the film say that we should not be judging it by the look of the trailer.

Thought that was worth mentioning.

 
At 29 Aug 2009, 23:30:00, Blogger eolake said...

(Comments in update to post.)

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 00:54:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

3D *should* work even in your living room. All you'll need is those polarized glasses.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 02:29:00, Blogger Jimbo said...

3D *should* work even in your living room. All you'll need is those polarized glasses.

That's what I figured.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 02:45:00, Blogger Jimbo said...

However I say the same as Eolake, it might be enough to get me out of the couch.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 04:33:00, Anonymous M. Pipolo said...

"Admittedly it's been years, but I think I liked [Alien] One better in this case."

True, "Alien" was - to use a term I recall you being blasted for once - a more "European" film.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 06:55:00, Blogger ttl said...

Alien too, yes. (Not Aliens Two, no.) I'd forgotten that was Cameron, not Scott. No wait, One was Scott, Two was Cameron.

The second movie in the series, the one directed by Cameron, is called Aliens (plural, no ordinal).

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 07:13:00, Blogger ttl said...

3D *should* work even in your living room. All you'll need is those polarized glasses.

Really? How do you get your standard TV monitor to shoot the two channels at you in different polarization? Sorry, but unless you have a 3D TV, it doesn't work.

They say a 3D version of Blu-ray will be announced in 2010 and "Avatar" is expected to be among the first, if not the very first, stereoscopic Blu-ray releases.

So, yes, you will be able to experience "Avatar" in 3D in your living room. You just need to upgrade both your TV set and your DVD player.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 09:29:00, Blogger eolake said...

Does anybody sell 3D TVs yet?

"The second movie in the series, the one directed by Cameron, is called Aliens (plural, no ordinal)."

I knew that, but just for a moment I had it confused with Look Who's Talking Too, a very similar film.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 11:10:00, Blogger ttl said...

Does anybody sell 3D TVs yet?

Yes, but I think they are based on older, proprietary formats. There is a new spec for transmitting 2 chan video over HDMI just out. Coinciding with the release of "Avatar", Panasonic is reportedly launching a new line of 3D tellys that implement the new spec.

I knew that, but just for a moment I had it confused with Look Who's Talking Too, a very similar film.

I think you are still confused. There is no ordinal in the name. It's just Aliens.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 11:14:00, Blogger ttl said...

Here's the full series:

Alien (1979)
Aliens (1986)
Alien 3 (1992)
Alien Resurrection (1997)

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 11:29:00, Blogger eolake said...

OK, no ordinal. Excuuuuuuse me. :-)

But you can see from your own list that I'm not the only one who thinks of it informally as "Alien 2", otherwise why would the third film be named "Alien 3"?

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 12:13:00, Anonymous tank mcnamara said...

ttl can't help being an asshole, as you can tell from his comments on this topic alone.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 14:26:00, Blogger ttl said...

Eolake reasoned: I'm not the only one who thinks of it informally as "Alien 2", otherwise why would the third film be named "Alien 3"?

Yeah, and the series gets even weirder with the two crossover films that followed Alien Resurrection:

Alien vs. Predator (2004)
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Tank observed: ttl can't help being an asshole, as you can tell from his comments on this topic alone.

"Can't help being" implies that I am trying, or would prefer, to be something else. You're wrong, Tank.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 19:45:00, Blogger eolake said...

Anybody know if any of the Aliens vs. Predator flicks are worth watching?

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 20:23:00, Blogger Jimbo said...

I have to admit I had forgotten that it was going to be in 3D. I think a lot of us when caught on something like that will scramble to kind of cover a mistake like that. I'm not sure if anyone knows if this 3D stuff is here to stay or not. I know Ebert is skeptical but convincing arguments have been made from both sides.

Anybody know if any of the Aliens vs. Predator flicks are worth watching?

I saw the first one and could recommend it if you are someone who can enjoy mindless action and, at times almost cartoonish, violence. As long as you don't expect something like Alien (and I too prefer the original to the more actiony Aliens (though I liked that one too)), which by comparison is exceedingly cerebral. It was fun.

 
At 30 Aug 2009, 20:55:00, Blogger eolake said...

"I'm not sure if anyone knows if this 3D stuff is here to stay or not."

Nobody can know.

It'll work for *some* movies. But who cares if "The Way We Were" is in 3D?

 
At 3 Sep 2009, 06:42:00, Blogger John Clifford said...

'Alien' was a fantastic movie, but 'Aliens' was just as good if not better. Both movies stand the test of time.

I like James Cameron as a director, but IMO 'Titanic' was pretty lame, saved only by the special effects. Leonardo de Caprio was absolutely horrible; it must have been embarrassing to be the only person of 'note' associated with the film to not receive an Oscar nomination. (de Caprio did redeem himself in 'Catch Me If You Can' and 'Departed.')

 
At 3 Sep 2009, 09:19:00, Blogger eolake said...

See here for my comment on the series and "Resurrection" in particular.

(Should be noted it's been "yonks" since I saw 2 and 3, I might react different today, who knows. But the percentage of action-type movies which I really like is not great. Notable exceptions are Dark Knight and Casino Royale.)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Website Counter