James Cameron's Avatar

[Johann]

I think this film is going to be the equivalent of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of changing the form of motion pictures.

This trailer is one of the greatest Masterpieces of editing I've ever seen.
You be the judge.
This is the biggest movie event of the year, among many movie events...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1_JBMrrYw8

[tabuno]

This movie has been on my must see list for a year now.

[Johann]

The movie looks incredible.
Friends of mine have griped about how it looks like a video game, that the CGI is so obvious. I see their point, but I give it up for this type of vision.
The hanging landscapes that you see the chopper flying by remind me of Roger Dean's artworks. James Cameron has the skills and vision to bring off just about any project he sets his mind to.

Did you know his Expedition: Bismarck is out of print?
And that it's going for over 200 bucks on eBay?
It should be re-released when Avatar comes out, along with all of his other films, because Avatar will garner him more fans. Count on it. I know I'll be buying Avatar toys and merch.
It looks too cool Man...

BTW, Expedition Bismarck confirms that the mighty battleship was scuttled. Cameron proved (with his robot cameras) that the interior armour belts were intact when she sank.
Another reason why that film is highly sought after.
You can see it in parts on youtube.
It's better than Cameron's own Ghosts of the Abyss.
He's filmed the Bismarck and the Titanic!
That's about as great an achievement as I can think of...

[Johann]

That heartbeat on the soundtrack...

It reminded me that Stanley Kubrick said "Nothing is more powerful than a heartbeat".
James Cameron is attempting to do something singular and unique. This film is a new (neo) mythology.
I'm impressed with the exciting trailer.
With those images, how can the film not deliver astonishing goods?

http://www2.avatarmovie.com

[Johann]

So for the fanboy readers out there, I found a listing (with photos on flickr) for the action figures, vehicles and creatures that are being produced by Mattel for the Avatar movie. Apparently they are highly articulated.

Characters:

Jake Sully
Col. Miles Quaritch
Dr. Grace Augustine
Norm Spellman
Cpl. Lyle Wainfleet (soldier)
Pte. Sean Fyke (soldier)
Trudy Chacon (pilot)
Eytukan
Neytiri
T'suTey


Creatures:

Mountain Banshee (gotta love that name, no?)
Thanator
Direhorse

Vehicles:

Scorpion Gunship (hella yeah!)
ATV
AMP suit (love the design of those- w/ huge machine guns, etc.)

Can't wait for this cinematic event....December 18, 2009

[Johann]

I just watched a 4 minute interview with James Cameron on Avatar: The Game and it was very interesting.
He mentioned that he had the luxury of time to get behind a video game idea that can be released at the same time as the feature film, unlike his previous movies that had games made from them.
The game is not a first-person shooter game. It's in the third person and apparently allows the player all kinds of cool options for immersing yourself into the fantastic world of Avatar, with massive weapons options and the like.

I don't feel bad at all hyping this film.
It's the kind of movie event I love.
Years-in-the-making, original, visionary.

[cinemabon]

Not to sound like a cynic or anything, but have you been to an IMAX theater lately? This film is being produced almost exclusively for IMAX (which will dull its reception in regular theaters considerably). At our local IMAX, we saw the lengthy "Avatar" trailer presented before "Monsters vs Aliens" in 3D (which by the way was hilarious but not worth watching in any other format or visual presentation). The audience did not like the content of the film and some found it offensive... I mean there were boos. Also, some of the dialogue sounded very corny. James Cameron is a brilliant man but every director has his "Heaven's Gate." Ask Spielberg about "1941" or "Hook" both of which failed miserably at the box office.

[Johann]

I don't think being geared for IMAX will dull it's reception in regular theatres- some people will refuse to pay for an IMAX ticket. I think it will do very very well at the box office.
Most film buffs know about the project and will go see it if only out of curiousity.
Heaven's Gate tanked but is still well respected among film buffs.
1941 was a film that Stanley Kubrick liked, even though it was silly...

[cinemabon]

You can polish an apple all you want, but if the core is rotten, there's really nothing you can do about it. "Heaven's Gate" a good film? It is a disaster on so many levels, its unbearable to watch or even discuss. Chimino, who so brilliantly directed "The Deer Hunter" and drove me to hysterical weeping at its premier fell in way over his head on "Heaven's Gate." He made ridiculous demands on the crew; shot, killed and gutted animals for effect (which led to the strictest codes since that film), and disregarded the basic rules of storytelling. The film is a long, drawn-out bore, historically inaccurate, and brought down United Artists, one of the great studios in Hollywood (started by Charlie Chaplin). It ended his career and its easy to see why. He shot two hundred hours of footage, tried to sell a five-plus hour version to the studio (no one but the editor would sit through it) and ended up with a tedious 219 minute version. During the premiere in New York, Chimino noticed people walking out of the theater at intermission and strolling past the huge bar the studio prepared for the event. He questioned, "Why isn't anyone drinking any champagne?" The exec answered, "They hate the movie, Michael. They're leaving!" Of the 40 million 1979 dollars spent on the production, the film made 2 million in domestic release and another 3 million overseas. Six months later, United Artists declared bankrupcy. The studio, who bankrolled the entire project, was broke.

[oscar jubis]

Film buffs LOVE Heaven's Gate. United Artists was a sinking ship before they invested on Cimino's grand vision and they blamed the demise of the studio on this distended, revisionist, spectacular western released when the genre did not have enough of a following to justify the expense. If JAWS marked the beginning of the blockbuster era, then HEAVEN'S GATE signaled that the era of courageous Hollywood investment on artistically challenging, visionary films had come to an end.

[Johann]

Heaven's Gate has some very poetic moments in it.
I can definitely see why someone would say it's a bore but when I think about that movie I think about the settings, the pace, the other-worldly qualities it has. I haven't seen it in almost 8 years or so. Cimino's career took a major hit, but he came back to direct again. It didn't totally destroy him.

The saga of that film and United Artists is a fascinating thing.
You can't lay all of the blame at Cimino's feet- he really tried to pull off an epic that no one had ever seen before.

[cinemabon]

Oscar, you can't be serious. If you are going to defend "Heaven's Gate" as courageous filmmaking, you have to present a better argument than the one you made. We all respect your opinion. But I will not stand by and let a sound bite justify that fiasco.

[oscar jubis]

I also respect your opinion but we will not always have the same taste. You also do not say what is it about the film that makes it so bad. I do not think that box-office performance and the artistic merit of a movie are related. Sure, the studio cut of Heaven's Gate flopped but so what? Did anyone expect 1980 audiences embracing a ruminative, downbeat Western? Then, what happens when a studio cuts 1 hour and 10 minutes from the original version so that the story becomes hard to follow? What if the execs who bankrupted the studio that financed the film scapegoat Cimino for his well-documented irresponsibility and penchant for excess? I haven't seen the film in 3 or 4 years, but this is what I wrote the last time I watched it:

"I love Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate, one of the most beautiful westerns ever made. It was widely held by European critics as a masterpiece and it did well with audiences there. The release was preceded by reams of negative publicity payed by United Artists executives scapegoating and blaming Cimino for the demise of a studio that was already dead. This doesn't deny the fact that Cimino himself caused the budget to balloon way beyond what's reasonable. But watch the film and you can see where the money went: thousands of extras in exact period costumes, perfect replicas of midwestern towns circa 1890, attention to the most minute historical details, amazing art direction, etc. Heaven's Gate was released in NYC, Vincent Camby hated it and Kael didn't review it. Panicked UA execs ordered the film cut from 219 to 150 minutes, and released the abbreviated cut at a relatively low number of theatres without much in the way of marketing and publicity. Westerns were not popular anymore, to begin with, and the film's deliberate pace and somber outlook did not sit well with popcorn munchers. Of course, even in America, the film has its defenders but overall its bad reputation lingers. Now, that's a shame."

[Johann]

When was the last time you saw the movie?
It has things to defend in it.
I'll even say Cimino approaches Terence Malick's style with Heaven's Gate. It's not a complete fiasco.
That's the man's major opus. He risked everything for that picture. He didn't win like Coppola won with his risk on Apocalypse Now, but the movie has some worth.
Cimino made that movie with his clout from Deer Hunter and found out that there was no audience. (Like William Friedkin and his remake of The Wages of Fear- no audience yet the film has merit)
It's really really sad because of the cost and fall-out, but film buffs see it for what it is: a grand, grand failure that has some worth.
Cimino really believed he was making a classic, epic western.
He didn't set out to make a film that would crash and burn so hard that it gave the last rites to UA.

[Johann]

To get back to the IMAX issue, I've noticed that quite a few new films nowadays are released in both IMAX and 35mm (or digital projection). It seems directors are shooting in both formats, and that is great.
I don't think "as a rule" they are shooting in IMAX, it's just that they want maximum impact, no matter what the story is: Lord of the Rings was released in IMAX, as well as Spiderman, Transformers, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, etc.
As a moviegoer, I like having the option of seeing either or.
I like mulling over the idea of seeing a particular movie in IMAX or not. I like having the choice. If the film is visionary, then there's nothing like seeing it in IMAX. (THE DARK KNIGHT, for one.)
It's just a really powerful experience.
I saw Watchmen in both a regular theatre and an IMAX theatre and the regular 35mm screening was better.
Dark Knight kicked ass in both formats but the IMAX was just THAT much better.
Transformers 2 was absolutely amazing on an IMAX screen.
Totally blew me away- a truly awesome "popcorn movie" blast.
I noticed the Harry Potter series are in IMAX too.
Blockbusters are usually the domain of an IMAX release and that's cool. If you can blow up a movie to 5 stories, then why not?
Size matters!
I have a hunch that Avatar would be astounding in IMAX.
(with a bottle of Greg Norman's cab merlot of course...)