The Geek Beat: The Great Blue Hype
Filed under: The Geek Beat
.jpg){kind=avatar}
Days out from the debut of the Avatar trailer, and the buzz of Avatar Day, we're still talking about James Cameron's technological opus. I wanted to write something that was a little critical of the hype, but I feel as though anything I say will immediately be perceived as a result of my bad experience. So, I recruited William Goss to be the other, more positive half of an Avatar debate. As Goss wisely points out, it's far too early to judge what this film is going to do in December, and I know that the full marketing onslaught awaits. The moviegoing public still has no idea what's in store. Is that a good thing? A bad thing? Read on as we try to play soothsayer, and then join in with some predictions of your own.
Elisabeth: So, let's kick the tires and light the fires. You actually made it into Avatar Day footage, right?
Will: Twice.
Elisabeth: Wow! How full was it?
Will: First time, maybe half full. Second time, a little more than. Neither, though, was packed. A few more kids at the later one, to boot, who came with their parents.
Elisabeth: I know people will probably think that I'm just bitter because of my experience, but I honestly thought it was handled all wrong. When the first announced it at ComicCon, I really thought it would be an all day event at theaters, and it would literally draw in the curious. The way it was handled, it only catered to the same handful that already knew about it.
Will: Well, it was made available online. The geeks that knew wrote about it. How many people already planning to go into a movie would rather see something twenty minutes long and then have to wait for the next showing? All they could've done more to make it public would be, well, TV spots maybe.
Elisabeth: So, let's kick the tires and light the fires. You actually made it into Avatar Day footage, right?
Will: Twice.
Elisabeth: Wow! How full was it?
Will: First time, maybe half full. Second time, a little more than. Neither, though, was packed. A few more kids at the later one, to boot, who came with their parents.
Elisabeth: I know people will probably think that I'm just bitter because of my experience, but I honestly thought it was handled all wrong. When the first announced it at ComicCon, I really thought it would be an all day event at theaters, and it would literally draw in the curious. The way it was handled, it only catered to the same handful that already knew about it.
Will: Well, it was made available online. The geeks that knew wrote about it. How many people already planning to go into a movie would rather see something twenty minutes long and then have to wait for the next showing? All they could've done more to make it public would be, well, TV spots maybe.
Elisabeth: No, but a lot of people do go to theaters super early, or might have stuck around after just to see what the fuss was about. I think keeping it so exclusive might have been a mistake.
Will: Perhaps, but then your die-hard fans would be miffed if they didn't get in. Though they would still pay to see it eventually.
Elisabeth: But are die-hard fans going to make a film's budget back? What I'm really worried about in terms of this film is that Joe Moviegoer is just not going to be interested based on that "common" trailer -- the one Cameron keeps saying isn't indicative of the film. That's the one everyone is seeing. I don't think it can draw in the crowds.
Will: Nothing's going to make the film's budget back at this point. Whatever the actual number is. But, if over the holiday season, people do start to tell one another "You have to see it, and you have to pay extra in 3-D," it could have the legs it needs.
Elisabeth: Out of curiosity, what has been the response you've seen to the trailers and Avatar Day?
Will: People were snarky about the trailer, impressed by the footage. I myself was considerably more impressed by the footage.
Elisabeth: I keep hearing that -- I've missed it twice now, ComicCon and Avatar Day, and everyone around me keeps describing it as so awesome ... and I watch that trailer and go "REALLY?"
Will: Our lot has been stuck on someone else's label of "game-changer," which the movie does not quite seem to be. The effects are outstanding, to be sure, but the story does come across like a convoluted take on a familiar stranger-on-a-strange-land-comes-around-amid-threat-of-war plot.
Elisabeth: I was surprised, but my sister, who is very movie savvy, actually goes "Avatar, that's the one based on that anime series." "No, it's the OTHER one, the one by James Cameron." We saw the trailer before Inglourious Basterds and she actually said "What the f***?" out loud in the theater, before leaning over and whispering that a World of Warcraft trailer would have been more badass and interesting.
Will: The biggest problem with the trailer that everyone is being shown is that it doesn't give a hook to the masses. Watchmen's teaser was one thing. There was a legacy and translation to speak for. And even the layman could figure out "It's a superhero movie."
Elisabeth: And the effects look terrible. It isn't like seeing the trailer for the similarly maligned Titanic where you went "Wow, Cameron has done something with this." It looks like standard CG to anyone. I know the hype, and I'm going "Really? Well, that doesn't look as good as Gollum or Dr. Manhattan."
Will: Right.
Elisabeth: I'm actually giving the standard argument to myself. "Well, it's probably going to be polished before the release date, that's just in progress CGI" before reminding myself that this is the movie Cameron reinvented the wheel on. :P
Will: Well, that's why they had the showings last week, to show this work as it should be seen.
Elisabeth: But again, they were so limited ...
Will: Well, do you want to buy out a day's worth of Harry Potter showings?
Elisabeth: No, but it's like if you're gonna do Avatar Day, go all the way -- or find a way to make it more accessible, like this new "Avatar on Wheels" thing they've got going.
Will: ?
Elisabeth: Now they're going to be taking giant television screens to malls and things to show the footage.
Will: Ah. They have four months to build awareness. I didn't think Avatar Day was the be-all end-all. Plus, you put a pretty enough 3-D trailer before something big like Christmas Carol this holiday season, and the public profile's gonna build without a doubt. I just hope they craft a more explanatory trailer by then.
Elisabeth: But on the other hand, what does it say to the public when they're being sold something so heavily? Are they going to be even more skeptical, or is Joe Moviegoer going to be super happy he's being catered to? Already, I'm seeing a bit of a backlash online -- this idea that it's just pure hype, and almost arrogant hype at that.
Will: It says, "you need to see this for yourself," which is what they want Joe Moviegoer to tell his friends and family. There was some pretty high-end hyperbole being thrown around. I'll stand by Devin Faraci's reaction at Comic-Con: "It's evolutionary, not revolutionary."
Elisabeth: Which, to Cameron's advantage, a lot of regular moviegoers have no inkling of. I envy the public that (if this is all it's said to be) just gets to have some immersive experience hit them like a wave.
Will: Yeah, so people should be more impressed, having less expectations, if only the experience is made available. Which Fox is clearly trying to do.
Elisabeth: Which I guess renders the argument I was going to present to you moot -- something like District 9 does incredibly well, and came out of nowhere for most people, even those of us in the know.
Will: District 9, though, had a lot less at stake. Numbers-wise, it was a less costly gamble. Avatar's saturation is all about making it as close to a sure thing when it opens as possible. District 9 just had to intrigue, entice, entertain. Avatar has to make people sit up, go out, tune in. So maybe the 3-D's a gimmick. But it does work. I can't imagine Avatar playing the same on DVD. District 9, sure.
Elisabeth: Yeah -- but there's a lot to be said for that, and people are sometimes more intrigued by not knowing, especially in this day and age. I wonder if a similar approach would benefit Avatar or if it can't, because it's ultimately not a very good product
Will: I think it's better to have expectations ebb and flow by now, instead of instantly pounced on in December.
Elisabeth: The cynic in me says. If it was a good movie, mind-blowing effects, 3D phenomenon, word of mouth would carry it in December. Fox wouldn't need Avatar on Wheels or Avatar Day.
Will: Someone argued for the Jurassic Park approach, with no dinosaurs or aliens, but if that were the case, you'd have today's backlash on opening weekend, and it would hurt the film. But the public doesn't know about it yet. You look at that poster, or that trailer, and what does the public take away? "It's got aliens."
Elisabeth: "That's the anime movie by M. Night Shyamalan right?"
Will: I don't see that mix-up being as common.
Elisabeth: I don't know, I've still been hearing it a lot. I was surprised my sister made that mistake given the newsfeed she's related to.
Will: From the sound of things, Liz -- it sounds like you want Avatar to fail. Every question has been "Why push it so hard?" and "Why make it so exclusive?"
Elisabeth: No. I'm just trying to play the cynic. I'm trying to play Devil's Advocate and failing, it would seem. I want you to provide the counterpoint. I didn't want this to be a mutual gush fest -- and I'm someone who has seen nothing but the crappy trailer, so I'm full of doubt.
Will: Not failing, but it seems like every answer I give is greeted with a "But..." Is there no upside to having an event movie in the works that might work?
Elisabeth: Oh, I think there's a huge upside. Given that it's been a great year for sci-fi, a good sci fi movie from James Cameron would be like icing on a genre cupcake.
Will: I feel like, if Fox were hiding it right now, or only had Comic-Con and nothing else to show for it, no trailer, no Avatar Day, you'd wonder what they were hiding. Maybe less cynically, but you'd doubt. We'd all doubt.
Elisabeth: As it stands now, based purely on that trailer, I have no interest in seeing the film. And I'm someone who knows more about the project than the average person who experienced it for the first time prior to Inglourious Basterds. I know the hype, and I see the trailer and go "I really have no interest in that. It looks so silly."
Will: Maybe that's a flaw inherent to telling a story like this.
Elisabeth: I have to remind myself that it's going to be this immersive experience, and think back to Comic-Con and what everyone was saying to get myself motivated. Will that change? I hope so. I want to be really excited for this movie. I envy those who are.
Will: I think it'll be fun. But I don't think we're looking at the Second Coming, no. We're looking at something very, very nifty at the end of the day.
Elisabeth: Will nifty be enough though?
Will: We'll see.
Elisabeth: All hype aside, do you think Avatar will be helped or hurt by the sci-fi year we've had?
Will: How do you mean? Constant comparisons to Star Trek or D-9?
Elisabeth: Yeah, do you think people are going to be more open to it, or will a lot of people go "Oh, ANOTHER space movie." Kind of like the comic book fatigue that was starting to hit by last year. To a lot of moviegoers, this isn't a Cameron movie that's been in progress for a decade, it's going to seem like something ripping off Star Trek or District 9. Maybe.
Will: After (and this is a stretch) 2012, Avatar is the last big sci-fi event of the year. We won't be comparing it to a summer that was months ago, save for maybe year-end lists saying how one worked better than the other. I don't think the general public will be misled by the mystique of this planet and its species. I'm in the same boat you are. I can't speak to the public's ignorance, and I don't mean that in a condescending way. The difference between you and me? I've seen the footage, would see that movie. You've seen the trailer, wouldn't.
Elisabeth: Like I said, I want to have my mind blown. This is one of the rare occasions that I actually find myself seeing a product from the perspective of the average, news-feed-less moviegoer and going "I don't like the look of that." It's a unique position to be in -- whereas you've seen more than me.
Will: In a way, it's Fox counter-acting their own buzz created by the trailer, whether they meant to or not. So better that than nothing at all.
Elisabeth: What do you think of Sam Worthington claiming that Cameron did that on purpose? That he wants the negative buzz with the good, minority buzz? They say that all publicity is good publicity, after all. But I'm concerned when the bad publicity will, ultimately, be the majority -- people who saw a trailer and are like "Yeah, don't know what that is, don't care."
Will: If you told me that Fox insisted on a regular trailer and Cameron pushed to have it shown as he wants it seen, I'd believe it. If it was much more strategic than that on Cameron's part, who knows. More people are going to see trailers and TV spots in non-IMAX 2-D inevitably. They can't change the look now. People don't like it, so be it. Some will be swayed to see it, and in 3-D anyway. Some will be swayed then to liking it, and others still won't. I think the marketing machine did the best it could to present the film, and I don't see Avatar Day as an event backfiring any more than the trailer alone would.
Elisabeth: What do you think it'll mean for 3D and technology if it does fail?
Will: I think they'll keep the overheads low, although they'd do that without anyone not named James Cameron anyway. I think 3-D fare is proving popular, but the horror and animated stuff isn't as costly as this hybrid of live-action and top-notch action.
Elisabeth: That's what I was wondering -- if you'd see a general backlash against greenlighting effects-driven properties
Will: No. But none of them will be this big again.
Elisabeth: That's what I mean -- not so much a general "Nothing with effects!" but a "You know, if a District 9 makes more money, then we only have to spend $30 million. That's something that needs to happen anyway.
Will: D-9 proved profitable on its own, and that may have its own fall-out. Studios more willing to crank out cheaper spectacle pieces with lesser-known or no stars.
Elisabeth: So, the 1970s. I could get behind that.
Will: We're not going to see Moon 2 any time soon. But stuff like D-9 and Wall-E is making a good case for sci-fi that doesn't have giant robots to sell.
Elisabeth: And I couldn't be happier.
Will: I doubt Avatar'll be a similar trend-setter, but whatever it does do, it'll do it big inevitably. We can only be happy with the elevation of the middle ground and low-budget stuff.
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-25-2009 @ 9:35PM
Riley Freeman said...
ive already given my opinion but i will type it again. I don't see this movie making back that crazy budget. The story is another love story type. The blue people dont even interest me and it just looks like the movie is trying too hard.
I think they should have gone about this like district 9 style. I don't know just my opinion I show people legion trailer, law abiding citizen, gamers, umm the fourth kind, surrogates, beyond a reasonable doubt, zombieland, the book of eli and people are all excited to see that. I describe and show them the trailer and everyone is just
"meh"
I could be wrong and it could make back its money and be insanely popular but I just dont see it. I see the golden compass all over again.
Shoot I'm even excited to see the blind side with sandra bullock
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 9:40PM
Marcus said...
Elisabeth, I sense a frustration in you that these tall blue Pandora creatures don't have any penises at all.
Unlike Dr. Manhattan.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 9:48PM
Elisabeth said...
No, Marcus. I remain unimpressed with men's genitalia whether it's real or CG. When they're too busy thinking with it, they just can't get around to doing much else.
8-25-2009 @ 9:58PM
Ross F said...
I think the problem is that they tried to sell the way Avatar LOOKED instead of selling the story. D9 got you hooked in because the story was mysterious at first and then it took further shape in the second trailer. Sure it didn't give us the whole picture as far as the story goes but we knew the main points: there are aliens on earth that are being treated like crap and some unsuspecting dude gets caught up in it. However, the Avatar trailer tells us NOTHING about the story, it's just supposed to look pretty (and it kinda fails at that). That's not going to convince a lot of people.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 10:05PM
Marcus said...
Then why are Michael Bay movies still being made?
8-27-2009 @ 10:30AM
Ross F said...
B/c unfortunately no one actually expects a story in a Michael Bay film.
8-25-2009 @ 10:21PM
ian said...
I'm still excited for the film in December, I just wish the build up hadn't been presented so arrogantly by FOX and Cameron. I'm fine with seeing LESS of the actual movie now and would be more interested in like little featurettes or something about the technology they're using to sell me on why this is such a break though or why he wasn't able to fulfill his vision until today. Or something on the mythology and backgrounds for Pandora and the Na'vi.
Most of my friends that don't read sites like Cinematical have no idea this movie is even coming much less thats its supposed to be a game-changer and fan service like Avatar Day did nothing to change that. That said, I look forward to it and I hope its amazing.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 10:19PM
cosmos said...
"It looks like standard CG to anyone. I know the hype, and I'm going "Really? Well, that doesn't look as good as Gollum or Dr. Manhattan.""
That's the key issue here, spot on.
Avatar has been built up as being advanced and technologically pioneering. This trailer did not make it out to be so. We've been blown away by the FX in other films and this, so far, has not beaten those standards.
Reply
8-25-2009 @ 11:11PM
John Muth said...
Good points all around - maybe a little too gushy on one side and snarky on the other, but I get where you're both coming from. I think that I fall into the group of converts, who was pretty blasé about the movie's arrival, but after seeing the "Avatar Day" footage - sorry to rub it in, Elisabeth - it REALLY won me over. I think that the failing of the trailer released on the internet, and before Inglourious Basterds, is that they didn't seem to try and make the effects work, to show the effect of the actual movie.
You know how you get those Blu-Ray ads on DVD's, and they're trying to show you how better BR looks - while being played on the inferior device - well, that's what they should have done w/ the Avatar trailer. Made the whole thing a little darker (like how the glasses tend to saturate the light on the screen), maybe kept the Na'vi shown on screen, only in the stylized light - like the part with the two of them at the end of the trailer (this falls in line with Beowulf, where the characters looked spectacular in candle-light, or shimmering gold light; but when you put them in "real" sunlight, they lose the "reality")
But, in general, I think that they tipped their hand to the general - or, online minority, however you want to look at it - public too early. And it was REALLY stupid to release the trailer BEFORE Avatar Day. But, if they wanted to give uus a trailer they should have given us the real people, an introduction to the world (I mean, why not use that whole drill sergeant thing in the trailer?! That's pretty fun) and the only thing we saw of the Na'vi, was the POV shot of Worthington's hands when his mind has been transferred. That's it.
But, the again, now that I've seen the footage; when I watch even the regular trailer, I think it looks awesome!!
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 12:01AM
Ian said...
This is the other Ian, FYI. I'll have to change my ID.
First off, I believe the mixed reactions to the teaser/preview footage is a classic case of fans creating a their own mental fan-film of what 'Avatar' would be, and are once again suffering some sort of film-goers PTSD when it turns out not to be what they imagined. (See: Star Wars eps I-III, just about any comic based flick)
The teaser is out there, for better or worse, to introduce average moviegoers to the film's existence. When people asked what I did last weekend, and I said that I went to see 'Avatar' footage, they don't know anything about it. Whether Cameron agrees with the strategy or not (or if Worthington's conspiracy theory is correct), if he wants people to see the movie, Fox needs to raise people's awareness any way they can.
We who have seen the 3D presentation are being used to create the word-of-mouth buzz about seeing the IMAX version. I keep seeing people posting on the lack of theater availabilty, and Fox needs us to convince as many people as possible to get to an IMAX screen if logistics permit it.
Also, I think a lot of folks may be misinterpreting the "game changer" theory. For quite some time, I've been reading statements from the likes of Cameron, Bruckheimer, Lucas and others that there needs to be a film that requires people to step away from their DVDs, Videogames, etc., and get out of the house and rediscover the multiplex. People go see 'Avatar' in droves, theater chains add screens, more films in this format get made, people come to see them in droves. Cameron is the one taking a chance and giving it a shot, and, if the tech takes hold, it's a legacy investment for Fox. They get to claim they were the first to realize how important it was to bring it to us.
Finally, story-wise, he has to keep it generally relatable, especially if he wants a Sci-fi epic to appeal to anyone not usually interested in this type of movie. The "Stranger Comes To Town" story structure is simple enough for anyone to grasp and stick with if well told. The same technique worked for 'Titanic', the "Star-Crossed Lovers" template gave people a hook into the bigger story. And for God's sake, lay off about the dialog. They have to translate this script into a lot of different languages come December.
Sorry if this was a bit long-winded.
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 1:13AM
ghonius said...
Elisabeth, you touched on a point that people should be thinking about more. You wrote, "...my sister who is very movie savvy, actually goes 'Avatar, that's the one based on that anime series.' 'No, it's the OTHER one, the one by James Cameron.'"
I had the same convo with my 17 year old sister and artist friends of mine. It' is not going too far out on a limb to say Cameron really pulled a fast one on the actual Avatar anime creators for two reasons:
1.The logo treatment used for promotions look too similar if not identical to the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" font and treatment. From letter kerning to the tribal-like font, Cameron ripped it off like tracing paper.
2.Early on when "The Last Airbender" was called "Avatar" Cameron went on record to say his film would be nothing like the series and the former filmmakers dropped it. He was wrong. After seeing the trailer and hearing about the 15 minute version, he pulled a helluva lot of creative from the show; the alien flying beasts, the supernatural hero, his girl. The difference, his protagonist is a white boy inserted into a rather "orientalized" body.
If his version is so different why did he go with the same exact font treatment? If his version is so different why is his protagonist endowed with special powers and in a world of hyperreal Airbender inspired creatures but without the Eastern faces and religious undertones?
As a director, one would assume Cameron is in a daze of some kind -- that his gigantic ego can't imagine for one second he is nothing more than an overdressed thief with fancy tools. I would argue that this whole idea was 100% inspired and/or informed by the essence of the anime. Any fan of the real "Avatar" has to wonder if Cameron did this to take a dump on the first and only representation of Asian's in western cartoons, made by Western studios, as a way of saying "eff you, this belongs to us, our faces, not theirs". It really baffles me. Why he would want to generate confusion?Because in the end people that don't know about the series will now be turned off to it. In theory, as an artist trying to stay relevant he's done just that -- it's a "Soulja Boy" move.
Reply
8-27-2009 @ 3:40PM
sa said...
oh ghonius, i'm not sure this reply to your post is even necessary, but, there is absolutely no plot cross-over between Cameron's "Avatar" and the "Last Air Bender"!
Cameron's Avatar is a reference to a human's full mind/personality being transferred into another host body - in this story, a big blue body. it is a twist on this definition of the word "avatar": "an electronic image that represents and is manipulated by a computer user (as in a computer game)". except in this case, it is a flesh and blood representation instead of an electronic representation.
think "Matrix", but with physical bodies. for a very good literary version of swapping minds/personalities to other physical bodies see Richard K Morgan's "Takeshi Kovacs" novels.
The word "avatar" for the "Last Airbender" cartoon is derived from these definitions of the word:
"1. the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
2. a : an incarnation in human form
b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person"
there are no asian children manipulating fire, water, air, and earth in Cameron's "Avatar".
thanks
8-27-2009 @ 4:11PM
ghonius said...
Oh sa, my points are all still valid. Illustrating what Cameron is trying to do versus what is apparent seems like justification. I think anyone using a bulletin board comments system knows what an avatar is and the show "Avatar" is not using the electronic definition -- we know this. However, the show "Avatar" about an Asian boy with elemental powers living in a universe where people have face tattoos and "flying dragon things" battle for dominance -- well that's Cameron's world too!
What a damn coincidence, all I'm saying, that "Airbender" would have all these attributes (ie face tats, more human than human abilities) and Cameron's blue avatar is loaded with face tats has more human than human abilities and battles flying dragon things. This seems clear as day. Can't you see the comparison is like tracing paper subtract for the "asian children manipulating fire", as you say.
Just to reiterate my point, which non-asians will find difficult to digest, Cameron found an island that had people on it already and threw blue paint on them and made them taller. He added one more level of complexity in the human-avatar transference plot point, but that's too weak to say the man didn't watch "Avatar: Last Airbender" on television one morning, forget what he saw and recame-up with the idea in the shower later that day, setting this nonsense into motion.
If he named it something different I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he didn't -- he stubbornly stuck with the same exact font treatment as the show and paraded the title around as if there wasn't one before his. He chose to do that and create a schism between followers of the show and his fans, it was sub-consciously deliberate and makes me look back his previous work for any non-white characterizations. Why? Not because im a staunch ethnic nationalist, but because it behooves me to understand why white directors consistently pull this same move off and claim they arrived at the idea completely on their own. It is a phenomenon to me that mixes with the hegemonic discourse of the time versus strides of non-white minorities. Thus my original post stands even if you can't accept it.
8-27-2009 @ 6:14PM
sa said...
hi again,
my comments were in no way intended to be a flame of any kind. my hope was to help differentiate Cameron's movie from the cartoon.
i haven't finished my PhD in cultural anthropology so i will have to get back to you on the true origin source of warrior face paint/tattoos and myths of flying beasts. i'm still not convinced i'll need to include a chapter on the airbender cartoon :)
if anything, i suspect that Cameron was made aware that the name was used for a cartoon, looked at the cartoon, and decided that his movie was so completely unrelated that he saw no conflict in using the same word.
i do not know much about the cartoon except that i have seen bits because my kids like it. it seems like a quality production and i like that it attempts to relate philosophical lessons based on eastern teachings. i don't want to get too off topic, but i'm actually surprised you are inferring that the mark on the main character's scalp, in the cartoon, is a "tattoo". do you think the authors intended the audience to believe the child was subjected to ink & needles? i assumed it was a mark that appeared due to "magic".
thanks
8-26-2009 @ 1:22AM
vegimorph said...
I absolutely loved the trailer! Its colorful, imaginative, action-packed and kind of epic. Although I have my reservations about 3-D, there's a part of me that is inspired and amzed by this kind of special effects work. I don't why you guys are poo-pooing it.
This was just the teaser trailer and a lot of the time a teaser trailer doesn't really give any story details out so its not fair what you're doing. If I remember correctly, people were passing aside the Titanic movie based on its teaser trailer and look how that turned out. Plus Cameron still has several months to work on the film so that's not the final look of the film anyway (although I think it rocks!) I also think Cameron will come up with a good if not great story for the film because he's a good storyteller, proved by his previous films and we, the audience can trust him because we know it won't just be big explosions and effects like Transformers 2 or something
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 1:56AM
Jay West said...
re: reaction to "AVATAR Day"
What follows is not a scene by scene analysis... nor do I delve into too much detail or minutia about the 15 minutes worth of scenes shown of James Cameron's AVATAR on the one-day-only preview billed as "AVATAR Day" and shown in 3-D in select IMAX theaters on Friday, August 21st (so as to keep this as "spoiler free" as possible), rather, this reflects my general reaction in seeing the footage shown.
I'd like to preface this first by saying that when I saw the online teaser trailer the day before this, I really enjoyed seeing the highly stylized merging of sci-fi and fantasy designs and elements that were parlayed in the trailer -- and I was actually a bit in awe. My initial thoughts were that Cameron had delivered a very unique and exhilarating fantasy world filled with some spectacular imagery.
Yet, when I watched the IMAX 3-D preview, oddly enough -- I had a bit of a different reaction. Though given the ideal viewing experience of having the eight stories tall, immense canvas of the IMAX screen surrounded by 12000 watts of pure digital surround sound -- I found myself strangely "removed" in watching the scenes chosen for this exclusive preview. Indeed, it was a bit of an "uncanny valley" type of experience -- truly, I would not classify this as a live-action film whatsoever -- but rather, it is definitely more so an animated feature. Given the abundance of CGI animation -- it seems odd that Cameron then just didn't go ahead and make this a fully animated feature -- as Robert Zemeckis has been doing with movies such as THE POLAR EXPRESS (2004), BEOWULF (2007), and the upcoming A CHRISTMAS CAROL.
It was indeed clear that it's a visually immersive and majestic world that one enters into for the story of AVATAR -- the 3-D is multi-layered, and the scenery is vibrant and ornate; yet it all looked and felt very familiar (and artificial) at the same time -- there's a scene with the rounding up and debriefing of soldiers which occurs much in the same way that it did in Cameron's 1986 ALIENS (and "power-loader suits" are seen later that are also very similar to those seen in Cameron's ALIENS)... and then there's an expedition in a jungle whereas the group encounters ferocious, dinosaur-like creatures such as in the original (1933) and contemporary (2005) versions of KING KONG (not to mention the original THE LOST WORLD (1925) and the JURASSIC PARK sequel (1997) that shares the same name), then there's the quintessential breaking-in and taming of one's steed sequence -- done here with flying a winged alien creature the likes of which has been seen in the animated movies HEAVY METAL (1981) and FIRE AND ICE (1983) -- and there's even a FERNGULLY: THE LAST RAINFOREST like moment (as in the 1992 animated feature) where the blue-skinned alien female Na'vi named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) shows the Jake Sully character (Sam Worthington) the ways of nature on her planet -- which also echoes memories of Pocahontas showing John Smith the ways of "her land" in Disney's 1995 animated feature POCAHONTAS.
All of this ultimately is presented with imagery that recalls the CGI creatures and worlds created by ILM for George Lucas' STAR WARS movies: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002) and REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) -- in particular, the creatures from the CLONES arena battle could just as easily be inserted into AVATAR's world of Pandora, and vice versa -- and Pandora's lush, forest filled world could easily be swapped with the alien world of "Utapah" and the Wookies' home planet of "Kashyyyk" as seen in SITH.
Granted, these scenes represent just the tip of the "iceberg" (no pun intended), so it's a bit too early to have a final opinion until one has seen the entire film... and even Cameron himself appears at the beginning of the footage stating that he is only showing scenes in the preview that occur in the first part of the movie so as not to divulge too much -- yet nevertheless, from these carefully selected 15 minutes worth of scenes -- I wanted more.... and I wanted that WOW factor that would signify the incredible "watershed" of things to come... something fresh and remarkable to validate the incredible claims spun in the trumpeting-like PR announcements of this movie's "photorealistic" characters and environments that represented the next level of CGI -- where we would see incredible worlds, characters, and situations never before seen.
Instead, unfortunately, I felt I'd been privy to a tremendous hype campaign, rather than an engaging and unique cinematic experience.
Ultimately, this movie is being done a huge disservice by being billed as, and sold as, having "reinvented the wheel" in CGI -- that's setting an incredibly high and unachievable bar for it -- and the results simply do not reinforce those claims -- in fact, the scenes show commonplace (yet excellent) CGI that audiences have been used to seeing over the past many years.
One thing I've always admired about Cameron's sci-fi and special effects work -- such as in his first and second TERMINATOR films and ALIENS film -- was his never-ending ability to create scenes and moments of wonder from "matchsticks" and "cloth" so to speak. Cameron's technical prowess, gut instincts, and creative abilities have allowed him to turn the most raw of elements into technical marvels in the past -- tricking the eye with the simplest of materials at his disposal and fashioning them into iconic, cinematic moments and marvels -- yet still giving them "heart and soul" in the process. That type of auter-like cinematic craftsmanship felt sorely absent here.
I'm still certainly looking forward to seeing AVATAR -- but now that I have seen this 15 minutes of what to expect -- my expectations have definitely been lowered (but again, only because of the way that this movie has been hyped and "sold" to us for so long). Ultimately, I'm looking forward to seeing a highly stylized, sci-fi animated adventure movie during the holidays -- with the promise that Cameron has saved "the best for last" in revealing the full excitement and wonder of his opus when AVATAR hits theaters on December 18th.
- Jay West
editor/writer: www.alienexperience.com
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 8:16AM
Marcus said...
Oh god, did i just read all of this. Have you considered writing a book about the Avatar teaser trailer?
8-26-2009 @ 11:56AM
Iker said...
POSSIBLE MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD.
I guess the cartoony look of the Nav´i is just the best way to draw the attention away from the real secret of the movie, which I bet is Stephen Lang´s character being totally cgi.
The scars help to disguise this fact too, as well as the lighting used, but the fact that that a lot of geeks are complaining about the blue smurfs is probably the response Cameron expected.
We´ll have to wait until December to know the answer but, meanwhile, keep an eye on Stephen Lang shots.
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 9:33PM
micknkeef said...
Elisabeth, in respect to the fox staff not letting you in late, does it really matter if the theater was full or not? Should I have to deal with someone interrupting a special event with a late entrance only if the theater is not near capacity? I don't understand your reasoning. I understand that we all have days where everything is piling up against us, but in a time when people have less and less courtesy at a an event that costs more and more to attend, I really wish they would enforce a no late entry rule for the movies. I guess I would sympathize if you had paid for the ticket, but this was a free event with no special concern for press. Regardless of your opinion, this was a "special event" and you did not keep up your end of the deal for admittance. The room being full or not should not play into your complaint.
I personally could not get past the server crashes that day and could not get into any of the Orange County screenings. I was disappointed but I half expected that.
Reply
8-26-2009 @ 10:17PM
Elisabeth said...
It does matter, yes. The footage was playing in the largest theater my multiplex has. If the room is half to a quarter full, and has stadium seating, then it's very unlikely my entrance will disturb anyone, especially if everyone is wearing a pair of 3-D glasses which reduce regular visibility quite a bit. (The Avatar ones were especially huge, practically a 3D mask.)
Packed to capacity where I'd have to climb over people -- yes, my entrance would disturb a lot of people and shouldn't be allowed. But hundreds of seats left empty, and people scattered all over? Very unlikely.
And from any marketing perspective, it should matter more to have someone IN that seat than to have it play to a lot of empty chairs for the sake of rules, regulations, and power trips. As I stated in the original article, a lot of the showings began late, and some started without sound. How is that less distracting than someone slipping in and taking the seat closest to the door while James Cameron introduces the footage?
But as I stated over and over, I have less of an issue with the fact that I didn't get in over that I was treated so rudely by the studio representatives.