The Hot Blog

I think we're all going to get into the mistake of overreading a trailer, but this looks GOOD. Given the diminished reviews from Comic Con, this stuff looks much more photo-realistic than I would have thought. That said, might take some getting used to with the blue Navi - bottom line is that you can have the best CGI in the world, but like with Hulk, if it's a creature in a bright primary color, a lot of folks are just not going to buy it. But I bought - actually loved how Zoe Saldana's character looked - you could see her eyes. Sorry, but this did not look like a cartoon, at all, which I was expecting.

I have to have faith in Cameron - he had made the utterly unreal or even ridiculous(bright silver morphing T-1000, harrier jet being used as a bumper car, Titanic being split in half) look very real.

Was not impressed by Sam Worthington in Terminator, but then Cameron has never been an actor's director either and he's gotten compelling work out of the likes of Bill Paxton, Paul Reiser, Tom Arnold(!), and Michael Biehn, so who knows?

Love the way the planet looks, love the ships, love that you see a character smile - I'll be there on 12/18 for sure!

I think we're all going to get into the mistake of overreading a trailer, but this looks GOOD. Given the diminished reviews from Comic Con, this stuff looks much more photo-realistic than I would have thought. That said, might take some getting used to with the blue Navi - bottom line is that you can have the best CGI in the world, but like with Hulk, if it's a creature in a bright primary color, a lot of folks are just not going to buy it. But I bought - actually loved how Zoe Saldana's character looked - you could see her eyes. Sorry, but this did not look like a cartoon, at all, which I was expecting.

I have to have faith in Cameron - he had made the utterly unreal or even ridiculous(bright silver morphing T-1000, harrier jet being used as a bumper car, Titanic being split in half) look very real.

Was not impressed by Sam Worthington in Terminator, but then Cameron has never been an actor's director either and he's gotten compelling work out of the likes of Bill Paxton, Paul Reiser, Tom Arnold(!), and Michael Biehn, so who knows?

Love the way the planet looks, love the ships, love that you see a character smile - I'll be there on 12/18 for sure!

I think Cameron is a bit of an actor's director: he helped Sigourney Weaver get a Best Actress nom for ALIENS...

Reposted from BYOB thread.

Avatar looks like a pretty solid science-fiction action adventure film. I never expected it to reinvent the wheel, so the fact that the teaser isn't mind-blowing doesn't bother me. James Cameron always goes for broke and always more or less delivers the goods, so I expect just the same this time around. And yes, The Wolfman teaser is fun too, but more for the cast than the ages-old story being told.

This looks ridiculous.

If we're asked to spend much time watching one fake-looking World of Warcraft character pining for another fake-looking World of Warcraft character, I'll get pretty fed up.

But all the human stuff looks awesome so far.

Geoff, I strongly disagree with you. Cameron burnt all his bridges with Titanic. The fact that FOX thinks hyping Titanic in front of this trailer is a draw. Totally misses out on the complete and utter antagonism most people who are XY have towards that movie.

You also are really underselling the power that is Sam Worthington. The dude made Salvation. He should even make this movie worth sitting through, even in mo-cap form. His appearance in that trailer is it's only saving grace in my eyes.

The fact that they put a trailer out there with those FX is pretty damn fuuny.

Good trailer - but i worry about how the movie's color scheme will translate into 3D. Even with the good digital 3D i've seen (Up,Coraline), the color is never as rich as when viewed in 2D. Look at the lush greens and blues displayed here - i fear the movie may be robbed of much of it's striking otherworldliness in three dimensions. I hope there is at least the option of seeing Avatar in 2-D theatrically, otherwise i'll wait for the Blu-Ray.

This is an interesting movie for me because although Cameron was one of the pioneers of CGI film making, he essentially didn't make anything after that mode of production flourished with the Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, etc. At the same time, in my mind, Cameron is one of the all time masters of more traditional special effect film making: gun-play, helicopters, car chases, explosions, etc.

From my very limited perspective it seems like full blown digital film making has yet to have a definitive masterpiece like T2 was for (live-)action film making. It will be interesting to see if someone of Cameron's visual taste and discernment can put it all together in a way that others have failed to. I really don't know. The trailer looks nice but the whole premise seems a bit too fantastical for me: far future, space travel, humanoid aliens who look like big blue elves, cybernetics, resource exploitation wars...I tend to check out with so much going on. Part of the beauty of T2 is the elegant, relentless development of a fairly simple premise which has an interesting relation to current history. Hard to tell from a 2 minute trailer of course.

Lord love a duck.

That cg just looks like all kind of retarded. Only a 'visionary' could be told he's a genius by so many sycophants who were obviously too scared to say how stupid a cg 7ft jar jar blue alien looks. Me-so silly.

Why didn't they just go with Kareen Abdul Jabar and Choi Hong-Man with blue paint?

I kept expecting Ewoks to pop up.

I don't think using the biggest movie moneymaker of all time to sell the director's next film is a bad idea, and Sam Worthington is still a non entity to everyone in America.

Why does Cameron's next feature have to be a children's cartoon? I have a feeling this one's going to be maybe...MAYBE a middling sucess. But I can't see it being huge. What are other stupid movies based on video games that this looks like? Final Fantasy,maybe?

Also, just to be cranky: they can travel across the galaxy, remotely link a man's brain to a living body, but they can't get the guy to walk somehow? He's confined to a wheelchair?!? Is this really a parable about the lack of affordable health care? (Actually, that movie might be interesting: Yes we can travel to other stars to fight the aliens there. No we can't pay for you to walk again.)

To me, the first half of the trailer looks like a classic live-action Cameron sci-fi from the 80s with better visuals, while the second half looks like something out of a Star Wars prequel. Not saying this is a bad thing, but I definitely am liking the live action stuff more than the CG. As I said in the other thread though, it's not fair to assume a whole lot just from a trailer. I've been saying for a long time that there needs to be talented filmmakers trying to make adult CG films. I guess if anything I'm just a little disappointed that this looks more teen-action fare than a more mature sci-fi film.

Torpid Bunny: RATIONING, I tell you!

I'm with you on that, Eric. That's one thing I don't get is all this talk of cgi and animation they have that can make the characters "look just like human. Can't tell the difference. Just like humans!" Why not use a human? There's only like 7 billion stumbling around to choose from.

N.E.Way, I was kinda reminded of that one segment from the animated film Heavy Metal with that Mary Jane Girl attired chick riding the mini dino off to fight and uphold her ancestors pact. I'm wondering what the human-alien connection will be. And by wondering I'm not looking for a storyline so much as how things play out time wise for both.

I wonder if I'm not a little too adult/jaded/not sure the word but willing enough to be transported to whatever world and not just be judgmental on effects and colors and magnitude. I guess what I'm thinking is if the story, characterization and dialog don't rock, then why all the fuss? Like being given keys to a Lamborghini and told to stay on surface streets.

For better or worse, they designed the aliens with some non-human characteristics. Look at the arms -- they're way longer than a human's. The bodies are too thin. The necks are too long. The eyes are too huge and wide-set. I think if you went with a Peter Mayhew-type you'd have the Predator.... which looks cool but definitely has the same build as humans, just on a bigger scale.

In other words, Cameron is deliberately trying to see if he can pull this off, not use traditional methods which, despite other positives, always look like a human in a suit.

I agree that the latter half is reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels, to some degree. I also don't think this is a problem -- the prequels didn't suck because of their visuals, they sucked because of the story and characters. If AVATAR has crappy characters and story, then it will suck too. If it doesn't, it won't.

People have doubted Cameron before and he's knocked them on their ass. I assume it will happen again.

Remember Cameron's pitch for Titanic? Romeo and Juliet on a boat? Well, Avatar is Titanic in space.

I reckon it will be a love story in essence (the hardware is for the ComicConnors but I think there are clues there to suggest they are aiming to pull in a big female audience: check out the last image and also take into account that Worthington becomes one of "them" and falls in love with one of them and then fights for them... come to think of it, this is Pocahontas.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. The spectacle notwithstanding, the thing that convinces me most is the sympathy in the eyes.

a lot of cynics. i thought it looked bloody brilliant, and i don't know shit about the plot other than the general concept of the avatar.

judging final theatrical visuals from a teaser online is just dumb.

I don't think seeing the big blue kitties even bigger is going to make them look less ridiculous.

I will probably see Avatar in the theater, but, yes, the CGI avatars are very cartoonish and do look like they've been designed by a milk dud-popping fanboy using the WoW character generator.

That said, whether with CGI or real life, Cameron can direct action sequences, so I'll be there.

I'm just not going to expect any of the gravity or intrigue of T2; this just looks like silly fun.

@torpid bunny Very good point. Maybe paraplegia equals rock status in 20Eleventy.

There's certainly some striking imagery and the combo with the sound definitely resonates on some emotional level, but need some more context. I worry this is going to be Dances With Wolves in Space and little else.

While I think this might turn out to be a fine movie, I don't think it has a chance in hell of being succesful. This trailer reminds me of one of those dime-a-dozen fantasy/sci-fi books you can get at book store. Even if it's really good, it's strictly for the nerds.

I don't get the hype over the effects - yes, it looks pretty good, but I'm not seeing "revolutionary" in the same way as the light-refracting work in T2 or The Abyss. It just looks like Star Wars Prequel scenes with LOTR Gollum face work.

Having said that, it doesn't look BAD and Cameron always brings the goods. I'm just a little mystified how they managed to swing the $300mil+ negative price tag (and given the reasonably aggressive advance work there's a good chance it's going to be in the region of $500mil when you factor in marketing/distribution etc). It's probably going to be a perfectly good film, but it's almost certainly going to struggle to turn a profit.

I can think of much better things to do with the half billion dollars than throwing it at a "because we can" project.

Perm: 1) You do not constitute America. The fact that you think that you do. Reminds me of a friend of mine. Nevertheless, Worthington is getting a lot of coverage. He may not be A-list, but next year could easily be his year.

2) It's Gone With the Wind. Why is it still Gone With the Wind? PEOPLE HATE TITANIC. This blog's postership is not indicative of the sheer dislike and hate people have for that film.

If you folks love it. Good for you. The rest of us who hate the damn thing. Do not like to be reminded that piece of shit still holds a title, that it will hopefully lose in two years.

Oh yeah, I would reckon that they site Titanic, because it's a chick flick. So they are trying to go 4Q on this one. Good for them, but it just looks hokey.

I am a geek/nerd, and I agree with Loco 100%.

Am I the only one who thinks the CGI environments and characters actually look like a step DOWN from the Star Wars prequels?

Laz, yes, they do, but do not tell anyone. They just like living in a world where... you know. Clone Wars. That's all I am typing. Clone Wars. However, you sir, are correct.

People do not hate Titanic, Fievel. Nerds do but people don't.

OK, nerds are technically people, but only in the esoteric world of gene sequencing. In actuality, nerds are more like a separate species, where their random and minor obsessions form core beliefs, and normal human behavior, interaction and interests are alien and unwanted.

I'm thinking of a way to create human avatars for nerds, so that they can walk and live in the natural world and interact with normal people to discover what real life is like.

I saw TITANIC opening day with a company of game nerds who all loved it...

I saw Titanic 3 times in theaters, and don't really know anyone that out and out dislikes it, let alone hates it. It's a perfectly valid marketing hook to say that Avatar is the follow-up film from the director/writer/producer of Titanic. Chucky may disagree.

As far as the visuals, I wonder if some things are compromised in the 2D version in order to maximize the 3D version? As long back as I can remember hearing about Avatar, 3D was a huge part of the production. I do think that the 2D looks about on the level of a recent Zemeckis like Beowulf, but it's possible that the 3D version looks outstanding.

"Am I the only one who thinks the CGI environments and characters actually look like a step DOWN from the Star Wars prequels?"

I totally agree with you, Lazarus. The movements of the Navi are awkward and stiff, and their skin doesn't seem nearly as real as Gollum's or even Jar Jar Binks's.

Maybe that's because I was watching it in 2D on a small computer screen, but, still, I'm confused by people who are impressed with the animation.

This is the first trailer I can remember where there's such a dramatic difference (in the feel of what works and what doesn't) between the low-res and high-res versions. Obviously any movie feels punchier when you watch a high-res version, but with this, when I saw the low-res version on the French site (early when Apple's link was still FUBARed), I was very underwhelmed; it did feel animated. Watching the 1080p version was almost night and day -- there was a wealth of detail that helped sell almost every shot.

I'm inclined to think that even greater resolution, combined with 3-D, will make it more impressive in theaters. Tomorrow should be interesting.

Wrecktum said: I'm thinking of a way to create human avatars for nerds, so that they can walk and live in the natural world and interact with normal people to discover what real life is like.

That movie stars Bruce Willis, it's called Surrogates.

My take on the Avatar preview - it won't come close to making back its money for production. I can see enjoying it, but not needing to see it multiple times in the theater.

3-D, bitches

(as in designed and shot for)

you whingers sure presume a lot from a 2D 2min visual montage with no dialog

and if you still think the animation for 'avatar' is a step BELOW the star wars prequels after seeing the 16min compilation in digital 3D, then you are either fucking retarded or in serious need of a prescription for eye glasses

What leahnz said. I didn't mention I was the only one who didn't like TITANIC...but this looks awesome. And in 3D it should be transcendant.

"and if you still think the animation for 'avatar' is a step BELOW the star wars prequels after seeing the 16min compilation in digital 3D, then you are either fucking retarded or in serious need of a prescription for eye glasses"

But is that going to make the actual movement of the CGI characters look any better? I don't think many of the CGI characters in Star Wars moved very realistically either. They're too stiff and lightweight, and it looks the same for Avatar.

But then again maybe I'm just "fucking retarded or in need of prescription eyeglasses".

Your talent for rhetoric is truly breathtaking, Leahnz. Did you learn your elocution at Charm School with Millionaire Megan?

Oh snap! The gal who acts like a guy tried to insult me with the name of the lead character from a beloved cartoon. Again, OH SNAP! Seriously lady, act like a lady, then I will get back to you and your ridiculous assessments on things. Titanic is a hated film. The fact that you folks do not hate it. States about as much as one needs to know about this crew right here.

3-D did not make Beowulf's story any fucking better. The avatar story is fucking hokey. WE CAN TRAVEL TO FAR OFF LUSH WORLDS, but WE CANNOT HEAL A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC? BULLSHIT! Whomever called that, word to you. Absolute word.

"WE CAN TRAVEL TO FAR OFF LUSH WORLDS, but WE CANNOT HEAL A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC?"

Funnily enough, I had trouble with a similar lapse of logic in Gattica.

IO, we need a list of the people who hate Titanic. Where do you figure it's so hated? Because you talk to nerds and read nerd sites and are a nerd. Regular people still like Titanic just fine. For the record, I like Titanic when people are drowning, but I could leave the first 90 minutes.

Also, I am closer to America than you are, where you think people care about children's funnybook characters.

I was talking to some friends baout the trailer just now, and they were stoked...because it looks exactly like the paperback sci-fi books they love. This is a nerd movie and it's going down, baby.

Er, Gattaca.

My position since seeing the footage at Comic-Con - we saw at least 80% of what is in the trailer, with more context - is that the movie will only work if people stop obsessing on the CG and buy into the characters. Can't make that leap via one trailer.

But I have to say, I feel a lot more comfortable that it can work the way JC wants it to work after seeing the trailer, which is designed to explain the ideas in the story, closing with the love story.

Someone mentioned the bodies. The reason for the Avatar that Worthington is "operating" is because the planet is too hostile for humans to survive on their own. The native humanoid types are 10 ft tall and more agile than we are. (And who knows what else they can do that we don't know from the footage?)

I get the angry response to the visual from some. I'm not blind. And the good reasons for Cameron's choices - these colors reflect what he has seen in the deep seas - don't change that. But again, if you are looking at the scenery, you aren't watching a movie, you are watching a reel.

What really strikes me today is how much this sets up either a real failure or a major comeback. All or nothing.

And anyone who tells you that they know which way it will go, right now, is full of shit.

The people who know best are the people who have seen the most footage put together, in context. And I have to tell you... they are not shy about loving it at this point.

We shall see.

We can cure polio, but we can't cure cancer? What?!?!!?

We can replace teeth in people's mouths but we can't come up with something that will keep cavities from happening in the first place? What?!?!!?

We have, in fact, put a man on the moon... but we still have a lot of people killed in auto accidents - even with belts and bags - every year.

Or as someone once said, "Give me my fucking premise, okay?!?!"

The problem with not obsessing on CG comes when the entire trailer and seemingly the movie is CG.

I can see this movie making some minor money...but I can't see it being a real big breakout hit of any kind. I love Cameron in general, but man.

You know you're living well when your worst film is the highest grossing movie of all time and won the Oscar.

IOI, I think that most adults understand that there are movies and TV shows and books and music that they are particularly receptive to, as unique individuals with unique tastes, and that there are things they enjoy that might not be to everybody's liking. And that the reverse is true as well (that they may have unique dislikes to things that are perfectly okay to the rest of the universe).

Have either of these thoughts ever entered your head?

"The people who know best are the people who have seen the most footage put together, in context. And I have to tell you... they are not shy about loving it at this point."

I'm not sure that ComiCon is an objective audience - there's a strong amount of self-selection that goes on for any convention or festival. You were fairly critical about the initial selection of reviewers for GI Joe, and there are broad similarities that apply to this situation (or even look at the Watchmen release).

I think the reason it's getting a "make or break" response is just the sheer amount of money involved - and that aspect has come through a lot stronger in reports than anything to do with story or characterization. It HAS to be a megablockbuster to be turn a profit - even $250mil domestic (which is what the Star Trek retooling took) is going to be regarded as a failure in the face of that massive budget. I think they chose the wrong message to run with, and the expectations created by that message are resulting in the knee-jerk reaction comments. And I don't think there's any way you can spin that polarization as a good thing for your box office.

Personally, I think it's going to be a fine movie - Cameron knows his stuff and I'm sure it'll be a pleasant way to spend 2 hours. But the chances of him having a second Titanic-esque smash? With a sci-fi film? I'm not sure if he's THAT good.

I meant people at Fox and Lightstorm, Foamy... however biased...

I loved it, apart from the look of the Na'vi. The action and evirinments were spectacular.

One reason why Titanic was so successful was because it had a hook to draw in the mainstream: 'Romeo & Juliet on the Titanic'. everyone in the world - who might see the movie- had heard of the disaster, and most people know of and identified with Romeo & Juliet.
Is 3D and a weird love story enough to draw in the mainstream? Even to make $200 or $300 million? (in the US)
I'm suprised Murdoch let this happen, as he is usually a saavy and cost-cutting businessman. Even after the success of Titanic.
Although I've heard he hates the movie business and often asks how to get rid of 20th cen.

Then I apologize. That was a bad assumption of mine.

However I think my observation still stands - when you raise the stakes that high, the cognitive dissonance involved has been reasonably well documented by both psychologists and consumer behavior researchers (although I prefer the generic term "Drinking their own kool-aid").

For even the most level-headed people, it gets hard to justify in your head that the most expensive movie of all time (which is a message that has been repeated over and over) is merely "good". There should be salt shakers on standby so that people can hand out grains for both the extremely negative and extremely positive comments.

SLICK:
your comment makes no sense because it seems quite obvious (correct my if i'm wrong) that you have not yet seen 'avatar' footage in a cinema with digital 3-D , and i said quite clearly, "IF you still think the animation for 'avatar' is a step BELOW the star wars prequels after seeing the 16min compilation in digital 3D....blah blah blah". so what are you taking umbrage about?

'avatar' is a 3-D experience, utterly and completely. that is the CONTEXT of cameron's film in this instance, a 3-D alien world the likes of which has never been rendered before, and the reason he worked for years to develop specific technology to enable the end result (which is not perfect, but it's pretty fucking bitchin to behold). the film is not designed for 2-D viewing (tho likely it will be viewed as such out of necessity, unfortunately) and no, viewing a wee 2-D montage trailer just isn't the same, funnily enough. deal with it.

'Did you learn your elocution at Charm School with Millionaire Megan?'

ftr, i have no idea what that is. but why do you feel the need to bring my gender into it (as is so often the case around here)? if a male commenter had said the exact same thing i did (and male commenters around here have said far worse), would you reference his gender in your response? i rather doubt it. sexist double standards are fascinating: boys can express their opinions with impunity, and while their comments may come under scrutiny, the fact they are male rarely enters into the discussion. but if a girl does the exact same thing, the spectre of female gender is often raised. WATCH OUT, we bitches be SCARY and OPINIONATED and ANGRY! after all, we are held to different standards; we should be 'nice' and pleasant and inclusive and deferential when we express an opinion, avoid harsh language or sarcasm lest we come across as less than 'ladylike', ultimately we should 'know our place'.

well fuck that, i never learned 'my place', sorry, i just say whatever the hell comes into my head. sometimes it's thoughtful, sometimes it's random, sometimes it's annoyed and even hell on wheels, but weirdly, i seldom feel anger while commenting, it's all a bit of a laugh for me, but some of you lads take it VERY SERIOUSLY. so attack my opinions all you like, but leave my womanitude out of it, it's getting old.

and IO, let me get this straight: space travel for a wheel-chair bound vet is a deal-breaker for you because it's UNREALISTIC, and yet a deeply troubled dude flying around a city DRESSED LIKE A GIANT BAT fighting bad guys dressed as CLOWNS and SCARECROWS and whatnot is not only REASONABLE but the best thing next to sliced bread??? right.

(and do tell, just for fun, what exactly are my 'ridiculous assessments'? oh, and don't tell me to act like a lady or i'll have to remind you of your propensity to be a fucking psychotic little grammar-mangling weenie)

In a world of faster than light travel and remote neurological control...we can't get Johnny to walk again. I know it's troll-like to pick apart a movie's premise, and I know that any number of plausible scenarios can be constructed to explain this incongruity. But to me, viewing the story critically (the tiny bit I see in the trailer), it's a little annoying. The storyteller is forced to give us more exposition then we really want to explain this problem, or if it isn't explained the rational part of my brain is having trouble going along for the ride. Of course that's just me. It's actually an interesting problem. I think that a really smart thing Cameron did with T2 was not trying to give any kind of pseudo-scientific foundation for time travel or intelligent robots. They're just a given. But those are both well-worn tropes of science fiction. (That was my problem with the latest Batman movies: a misguided attempt to rationally ground a premise that only suffers from such labored exposition.) But in a fantasy scenario where we have space travel, humanoid aliens, all kinds of fictional whiz-bang medical technology displayed prominently in the trailer itself, I don't think I'm going out on a limb by pointing out that having the main character be confined to a wheelchair is a bit of a head scratcher. It doesn't have to compromise the whole movie, but it's a little hurdle the movie has to overcome.

Leah, Amen!

Having seen the footage in 3D on an IMAX screen I can say - for myself, at least - that it looks far better there than it does in a tiny box on a computer monitor. That are colours in the footage I saw that I'm not sure I had ever seen before in a film. Some of the images and the compositions were just awe inspiring. And all the footage that is in this TEASER (just btw) that wasn't in the sequences shown at "avatar day" shows so much promise.

IO, You think everyone hates Titanic because you read your websites where everyone thinks the same. These are also the same websites that lead you to believe that last year's X-Files movie would be a huge hit and we just weren't reading the correct websites. Indeed.

Leahnz FTW!

And are y'all certain Cameron doesn't explain the wheelchair -- which by the way, you can't totally see so who knows it is?

Well, I just watched it again. People are tripping over dude in a wheelchair but I didn't see one Black nor Latino and NO ASIANS! Is that realistic or does nobody really have a problem with the fact they've seemed to got genocide down pat?!

I jest, kinda, since I skimmed imdb for cast list and saw, as expected, it's not color free (who knows how prominent those rolls will be) but it's kinda funny what people will lock onto in regards to their perception of the future.

The Girl in the film is Zoe Saldana, though she is blue. I think Wes Studi is too. Michelle Rodriguez is human.

As for the price and "just good," this is only a trailer! And it's a teaser trailer at that. And the price thing is not Fox promoting it, it is a media obsession.

Yes, it may factor in for a lot of people. But in the end, it's the movie movie movie, not the price tag, price tag, price tag.

And as much as I write about money, that is the truth for me. Superman Returns wasn't disappointing because it cost so much... it just sucked. But so do a lot of summer movies. There was also a story there because WB was trying to reboot the Super franchise for years, failed, made the Singer move... and still failed... as a business. Two separate issues.

Same is true when I love a money loser. (See: Speed Racer) There is the movie, there is the marketing, there is the money... they all touch, but they are all separate issues, really.

My money question would be who owns the technology? Sure, all these costs will be associated with the film but if Fox capitalizes the hardware, break even point for the film might not be so bad. Wasn't Cameron mentioning in that video clip Dave did that other films were using the technology? My guess is $100M doesn't hit the p&l. But someone else may know better.

I think cost can be a non-issue unless it's really inside your dome. I'll agree, I wasn't thinking of cost when it came to the last Superman movie. I was expecting more since it was Singer. However, when Waterworld came out it was hard not to think about the costs. I the film was OK and even wondered if I would've have liked it more if it wasn't publicized for its outrageous budget. Same thing happened to me way back when Madonna's video for "Express Yourself" came out. I'm pretty sure the last the veejay said when intro'ing the world premiere was talking about the $1 million dollar budget. I knew nothing about filmmaking but all I could think was 'really?! Where?'

This will be simple and to the point:

1) People who complain about CGI are retarded. I remember lots and lots of shitty make-up, miniatures, stop-motion, blue screen, matte work, etc that COMPLETELY took me out of movies. People act like pre CGI effects were 100% flawless. They were charming and there are still many movies that should use them, but there are many past movies that CGI would have made eons better. CGI complainers are transgressive, like the pricks who thought punk rock was garbage.

2)Loved the trailer. But it is JUST A FUCKING TRAILER. JESUS CHRIST IN A CRACKER!!!! HOW MANY SHIT MOVIES HAVE YOU SEEN AFTER PRAISING A "GREAT" TRAILER? I'M A FANBOY. A GEEK. BUT THE UTTER IRRATIONAL INSANITY SIMPLY MAKES ME WANT TO TYPE ALL IN CAPS.

1) I like TITANIC. Always have. Aside from Zane, the performances are top-notch, Kate is gorgeous, the F/X at the time were incredible. It is corny in parts but I view it as a young romance that is sparked by the usual young "this is everything" irrational emotions. The sinking is perfectly filmed and paced, and it is harrowing in parts.

But that's just me. Everybody else hates it.

:-* K & C. now all i need is the sunshine band and i'm sweet-as

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: