Troy's Avatar Thread...

[E-Stat]

Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?

Give it at least six months. It just crested the $1B mark recently.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Not to be a party-crasher, but any idea when it will be out on disk/BR for purchase?

Probably a few weeks before "Avatar part deux" hits the theaters.

[Geoffcin]

Avatar has overtaken "Return of the King" as the second highest grossing picture of all time.

http://filmonic.com/avatar-overtakes...f-the-king-762

And I haven't even gotten to see it again!

[jvc]

We went this past Sunday to see it, at an Imax theater in 3D. A bit too much tree hugging, but not too bad. The 3D effects are spectacular! They alone, are worth seeing the movie. With all the talk about 3D being the big thing at CES, and the coming thing in home theaters, if it's 3D like used in Avatar, I'll definitely embrace the technology. But I'll have nothing to do with the red & blue lens crap.

[nightflier]

So will the DVD be in 3D (lenses included, I presume)?

[Gerald Cooperberg]

Via the AV Club, there is supposedly a sex scene that was cut from the movie that will be included on the DVD:

There's only one semi-sexy scene in James Cameron's blockbuster "Avatar," but what couldn't be shown in theaters you'll be able to watch in the privacy of your own home.

Cameron admitted in a recent group interview that "Avatar" did have a sex scene between Zoe Saldana's Neytiri, a Na’vi, and the avatar of Sam Worthington's character, Jake Sully, but he cut it out in favor of a PG-13 rating.

"That [scene] will be something for the special edition DVD, if you want to see how they have sex," Cameron said.

Uh, Coop

[Troy]

Via the AV Club, there is supposedly a sex scene that was cut from the movie that will be included on the DVD:
Uh, Coop

Yeah, I heard about this. Already pimping the DVD, are they?

I think the Na'vi' version of Sigourney Weaver is the sexiest cartoon character since Jessica Rabbit.

[Geoffcin]

Yeah, I heard about this. Already pimping the DVD, are they?

I think the Na'vi' version of Sigourney Weaver is the sexiest cartoon character since Jessica Rabbit.

While I agree with your sentiments re; Sigourney, you really can't call any of the principle Na'vi characters "cartoons" since their movement was done by direct motion capture. They are more like enhanced visual representations of the actors. In effect the Avatars were digitally painted onto the actors. Certainly there's no scene in the whole film that looks "cartoonish" in any way.

This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Certainly if the academy overlooks Zoe's performance, one that I thought stood out as very Oscar worthy, they are going to piss off both her and more importantly Cameron, and you don't piss off your #1 money maker. Avatar may wind up to be the highest grossing movie of all time! It's going to be interesting to see how the academy figures this all out. They might even have to add a new category, or several!

[nightflier]

Adding a new category for actor and actress, would certainly make the event a little more than a winner-takes-all kind of affair - twice as many chances to get an award or nomination.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Didn't this same debate rear its head with Gollum (and to a lesser extent Andy Serkis' performance as King Kong)? I guess Brad Pitt got nominated for Benjamin Button, which isn't that far off. Would it change your opinion if it wasn't motion capture? What if the animator just modeled the facial expressions on the voice-over actor (which happens a lot, right)? Is the whole notion of nominating individual actors willfully ignoring that most acting performances also bear the fingerprints of the director (or animator, etc) and aren't always an individual feat as we'd like to believe?

-Coop

[emaidel]

Well, everyone's had his say, and now it's time for me to join in. I saw Avatar a couple of weeks ago and am still in awe of how good a film it is. I totally disagree with the negative comments about the writing of the film, and found it one of the most dazzling visual feasts, and emotionally involving films I've ever seen.

I found The Abyss a bit long and slow, but ultimately worthwhile. Aliens was a helluva scary and exciting horror flick, and far and away the best of the three Alien films. Terminator 2 likewise was the best of that cycle, and while not the most intellectually-inspiring film ever made, it was superb film-making. Titanic blew me away, by managing to keep my full attention for its 3-hour length with a rather sappy love story, and my actually caring for the characters. It also set all-new CGI standards for the day.

I disagree with comments that Ratatouille was "peurile," as I found that animated film exceptionally entertaining, and considerably above others of that ilk. Star Trek, released this past summer, was far and away the best film in that series - ever, and well worth the praise it received from critics nationwide.

My two cents.

[Troy]

While I agree with your sentiments re; Sigourney, you really can't call any of the principle Na'vi characters "cartoons" since their movement was done by direct motion capture. They are more like enhanced visual representations of the actors. In effect the Avatars were digitally painted onto the actors. Certainly there's no scene in the whole film that looks "cartoonish" in any way.

Maybe to you. While Avatar is quite advanced over past motion capture characters, there is still no mistaking that they are animated. And they have features that are exaggerated. Cartoonish? That's just semantics. Do they have to appear cartoonish (IE: like Elmer Fudd) for the animation to be considered a cartoon? I say no. Animation=Cartoon.

This actually bring us an interesting conundrum. There's no way that Avatar is not going to get nominated for a host of Oscars.With that being said, how would you go about awarding something to Zoe Saldana? Best Actress? Certainly she's done much more than voice over work, and in any other movie that's what she would get nominated for. Remember it's not just the gross physical motion either, all the facial expressions were done by direct capture too. Does that diminish the actor's input to the point of NOT being able to be nominated for an award?

Motion capture=animation. Period. Animated characters have never been eligible for acting oscar® contention.

Yes, MC introduces an interesting conundrum. I have no idea how you determine where the line is for an actor getting a nomination if the character they portray is animated.

Certainly if the academy overlooks Zoe's performance, one that I thought stood out as very Oscar worthy, they are going to piss off both her and more importantly Cameron, and you don't piss off your #1 money maker. Avatar may wind up to be the highest grossing movie of all time! It's going to be interesting to see how the academy figures this all out. They might even have to add a new category, or several!

Well, I'm gonna disagree, there isn't a single acting performance in Avatar (animated or otherwise) that deserves a nomination, so we don't have to worry about it. Yet.

I suspect most actors don't like the idea of animated characters getting oscar® noms, whether they are MC or not.

I also think that your " you don't piss off your #1 money maker." comment, as it applies to acting nominations doesn't hold water. While this is true for most of the other major oscar® categories, the acting oscars® usually have nothing to do with box office. A look at nominations of the past will bear this out.

And to anyone that finds the writing in Avatar to be good, I direct you to this hilarious gem I found on the internets:

[Feanor]

...
And to anyone that finds the writing in Avatar to be good, I direct you to this hilarious gem I found on the internets:

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten [edit] seven [/edit] basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?

By the way, I think Stephen Lang's portrayal of Colonel Miles Quaritch was about perfect as the character allowed.

[Geoffcin]

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?

By the way, I think Stephen Lang's portrayal of Colonel Miles Quaritch was about perfect as the character allowed.

Yeah, there's some great caracter acting in Avatar. Lang looked like he could chew on a steel bar and spit out nails! How about Giovanni Ribisi as the corperate slime-ball? Also about as perfect as you could portray.

[Troy]

Yeah, there's some great caracter acting in Avatar. Lang looked like he could chew on a steel bar and spit out nails! How about Giovanni Ribisi as the corperate slime-ball? Also about as perfect as you could portray.

Both actors were over-acting horribly in these roles. Good acting is about subtlety and nuance, not scenery chewing. Both characters sorely lacked any sort of duality or inner conflict, critical for a worthwhile acting role.

I'll agree all day long at how impressive the visuals were in this movie, but love for the acting and writing? No way. In that regard, this movie was utterly pedestrian.

[Troy]

So what's your point, Troy? I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature. Is it a big deal if Avatar uses one of them?

Yes, that's true about the 10 basic plots. What sets apart a new story based on one of these plots, however, is it's reinvention of that plot. Just plugging new names into a previously written plot is not what I would call a reinvention. It's just lazy.

[Troy]

Adding a new category for actor and actress, would certainly make the event a little more than a winner-takes-all kind of affair - twice as many chances to get an award or nomination.

I disagree with this too. The more awards given, the more it dilutes the meaning of winning that award. It cheapens the brand. The increase from 5 to 10 nominations and the addition of the animated category are both bad moves. But the oscars are more about business now then they've ever been, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them add still more categories and noms every year.

Plus, the stupid show will be 13 hours long.

[Geoffcin]

Both actors were over-acting horribly in these roles. Good acting is about subtlety and nuance, not scenery chewing.

I'll agree all day long at how impressive the visuals were in this movie, but love for the acting and writing? No way. In that regard, this movie was utterly pedestrian.

Good acting means you convey your caracter to the audiance so that they understand exactly what you are trying to tell them about it. The trick is to do that and appear that your "real"and not acting. The best actors all know how to "overact" acccordingly.

I still chuckle when I think of Ribisi saying "Look at all that chedder!"

Oh, and I'll agree all day long that the plot was copied pretty much wholesale. Reminds me of another blockbuster with the same problem, heck that one even had it's own problem with "overacting"; can you say "Star Wars"

[nightflier]

I'm told there are only ten basic plots in all of literature.

I seriously doubt that. What exactly do you include in "all of literature"?

[Troy]

Reminds me of another blockbuster with the same problem, heck that one even had it's own problem with "overacting"; can you say "Star Wars"

Yeah, The acting was awful in Star Wars too.

And there were no best acting nominations anywhere near the Star Wars franchise, right? Isn't that what we were talking about?

[Geoffcin]

Yeah, The acting was awful in Star Wars too.

And there were no best acting nominations anywhere near the Star Wars franchise, right? Isn't that what we were talking about?

Funny how even with the so-so acting Star Wars changed the movie industry.

Expect the same effect from Avatar. Even though the acting was much better!

[Feanor]

I seriously doubt that. What exactly do you include in "all of literature"?

Apart from the fact that I was just razing Troy, there was somebody somewhere who proposed that there are only seven (not ten -- my mistake) basic plots. Of course we're talking about very high level plot descriptions.

HERE is one discussion of basic plots. This also talks about 1, 3, and 20 basic plots.

There is also an author, Christopher Booker, who fairly recently wrote a book about seven basic plots, (different from the ones above). See a description HERE. (Arguably Avatar follows the "Rebirth" plot.)

[atomicAdam]

This might be more entertaining than the movie. Not that I've seen it. NSFW language.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll be seeing it after xmas at our local Imax theater. I would say that the tech in the movie would absolutely need an Imax theater to work correctly so if your seeing it at a regular theater, or waiting for the DVD/BlueRay to come out your not going to be seeing the movie as the director intended.

This is not quite correct. When this movie comes out on Blu ray(at least), it will look exactly like what you saw in the theater - it will not be a red and blue affair this time around.

I've seen "Up!" in 3-D and while it was quite remarkable (both as a film AND the 3-D effects), the tech is not fully up to fast movement in 3-D. There's noticable judder when fast action takes place. Probably because of the split frame rate. If they can answer that problem then I'm all for 3-D taking over the theaters.

You are not seeing the same format of 3D that was shown in the theaters. There is no judder in the theatrical 3D system because the differing frame rates and shutter sequencing is locked together to prevent judder. What you see is probably an artifact of the red/blue system, not the 2D plus meta data system used in the theaters, and what will be eventually used at home.

[Kam]

This is not quite correct. When this movie comes out on Blu ray(at least), it will look exactly like what you saw in the theater - it will not be a red and blue affair this time around.



You are not seeing the same format of 3D that was shown in the theaters. There is no judder in the theatrical 3D system because the differing frame rates and shutter sequencing is locked together to prevent judder. What you see is probably an artifact of the red/blue system, not the 2D plus meta data system used in the theaters, and what will be eventually used at home.

not meant as a sidetrack, but holyjeebus i just noticed you have FOUR 15" subs in your system??? daaaaaayyyymmmmmm. das-nice.