avatar Tagged Articles at Cinematical

From SciFi Squad

Well, the time has finally come for James Cameron's Avatar to make its first ever appearance, and what a better place to start than at a packed auditorium full of fans the Cinema Expo in Amsterdam! According to various reports, 24 minutes of footage was screened from the new film, and the word "jaw-dropping" was used more than seven times, which, of course, means that the hype machine for this bad boy is already way out of control. On hand to introduce the footage were Avatar director James Cameron and actors Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang. Prior to showing the footage, Cameron declared that the 3D renaissance has arrived.

Here's a few quotes to go along with two images from the film that were on display at an after party:

"Overall I was really impressed by what I saw. The effects are in a league of their own." ... "It took my breath away. I thought–just like you guys–that I've seen it all with Gollum, or The Hulk, but Cameron has done it again. These creatures seem so real, that within minutes you forget you're watching an enormous and very blue CGI character. Even the eyes are totally convincing. The characters have real personalities and a soul." -- Coming Soon

Read the rest (and see the images) over at SciFi Squad

OMG! Up to now, all we've seen from James Cameron's upcoming 3-D epic Avatar is a photograph of Cameron on set with star Sam Worthington, and another solo shot of Cameron, so these peaks at concept art for the film, courtesy of the blog MarketSaw, make me very happy because they look so cool.

The blog says that the images are from The Art of Avatar: James Cameron's Epic Adventure, a book that's due to be published in November. As such, they don't represent the final product, of course, but they give a good idea of the look and style that Cameron has in mind for the movie. (That's a presumption on my part.) To quote from a previous post, Avatar "tells of a paraplegic ex-marine war veteran (Worthington) who's sent to establish a human settlement on the distant planet of Pandora, but winds up in a battle against the planet's indigenous population, the Na'vi." The image above shows a pretty wild-looking helicopter pitted against winged creatures; the other pic depicts the power suit that allows humans to explore Pandora.

If you'd like to know more about how the power suit and helicopter fit into the overall scheme of things, head on over to MarketSaw. They have the full-size, full-resolution pics. Right now, I can't wait to see some images in action. When do we get a teaser?

"These are not the screens you want," IMAX is, in effect, claiming, trying a Jedi mind trick to downplay recent consumer anger over the smaller, unadvertised size of their new-fangled digital screens, for which they charge a premium of up to $5.00 per ticket. Yesterday, they tried to "wow the media," says The Hollywood Reporter, " while also performing a bit of damage-control."

IMAX claims that it's an "old issue" because the average size of an IMAX screen has been "just slightly bigger" than conventional screens for six years. Really? They also claim that they have a "nice problem: having to choose among films offered for release." Yet the New York Times reports that the company "has not lined up any other Hollywood movies for its ultra-big screen theaters" [emphasis added] after James Cameron's Avatar opens on December 18, leaving the schedule clear until Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on March 5. (The article mentions size three times, so they haven't gotten the company message.) The company intimates that it wants to be able to "satisfy demand."

IMAX is a public corporation, and their first obligation is to their shareholders. But, clearly, they are so preoccupied with profit that they are ignoring the legitimate concerns of the moviegoing public. (Check out the comments when we originally posted about this.) If IMAX is so convinced that their smaller digital screens provide an "immersive experience," why not disclose it? Why not promote it? "IMAX: Size Doesn't Matter!" or "IMAX: Small is Powerful!" Instead, they claim that interest will be so high that it will take three months for everyone to pay more money to see Avatar on a smaller screen that's only "slightly bigger" than other screens (that charge less) in the same multiplex. Here's another slogan: "IMAX: Taking Your Money and Running."

I will fess up here and now my inability to confirm this picture that accompanied a pop-up ad on Variety's website and its relationship, if any, to James Cameron's ultra-hush-hush Avatar. There is nothing on Attitude Studio's show reel that would deny as much, and I cannot get their gallery to open for whatever reason (if anyone can and sees something similar on there, let us know).

All I can note, though, is the image's striking likeness to Avatar's star, Sam Worthington (also of this month's Terminator Salvation -- the guy's on quite the roll). I could totally buy this being a representation of the lean, mean ex-Marine that he's supposed to play.

So Steven Soderbergh can vouch for it a wee bit, and so can some guy at Time Magazine. All I know is: even if this isn't a shot from the flick, when are we actually going to get a look at this digital revolution for ourselves?

Since we still haven't seen anything worthwhile from James Cameron's Avatar, save for the occasional behind-the-scenes green-screen shot or fan-made trailer, all we have to go on for the time being is word from other filmmakers or journalists who've been allowed behind the curtain for a sneak peek. Some say Cameron's big-budgeted (over $200 million) part live-action/part animated 3D extravaganza will change everything we've come to expect from your average moviegoing experience. Personally I hope that includes aliens bursting out of the screen and up the theater aisle hell-bent on massaging my neck for two hours -- but I'll take what I can get.

Speaking of teases, Coming Soon spoke with writer-director Steven Soderbergh while the man was doing press for his new film The Girlfriend Experience, and, surprisingly, he threw in an Avatar mention when asked why today's films don't have the impact or longevity of some classics. On Avatar, he notes, "I've seen some stuff and holy sh*t. It's the craziest sh*t ever." For Soderbergh, who's constantly experimenting and playing around with digital filmmaking, to use "craziest sh*t ever" in a sentence -- well, he really must have seen some crazy sh*t. The man went no further, but Cameron has to be really putting together something special and magical to elicit that sort of reaction from Soderbergh. Argh, show us something Fox! We're dying over here.

Avatar hits theaters on December 18.

Like an out-of-control freight train barreling down a hill, more 3-D movies are coming, whether we want them or not. Hollywood studios have placed their bets, theater owners are feeling the pressure to upgrade, and moviegoers are being pummeled with the idea that 3-D is the greatest thing since, well, the last time the studios tried to shove 3-D down our throats, in the long ago, musty, medieval decade known as "the 80s."

That being the case, perhaps we should bow to the inevitable and consider which upcoming movies should be in 3-D, and which ones would be a total wash with an extra-dimensional viewing experience. Amy Pascal of Sony Pictures Entertainment told Forbes Magazine that Spider-Man 4 "could be" shot in 3-D. She and fellow exec Michael Lynton think most animated movies will be in 3-D, and believe James Cameron's Avatar "could change the world," in Pascal's words. (Which we've heard before.) She continued, "I don't know that it will ever be the way you see dramas, but I can't say anymore that it won't be."

Announced 3-D releases for 2010 include: Beauty and the Beast, Alice in Wonderland, Piranha 3D, Toy Story 3, Step Up 3D, and Rapunzel. To allow for development and pre-production time, let's put our thinking caps and consider the future. For example, Spider-Man 4 is slated for release in May 2011. What other live-action pictures planned for 2011 would benefit from 3-D? How about Thor? What if he could hurl his hammer at you in 3-D? Or The First Avenger: Captain America? How about making Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II extra special -- in 3-D? Why not The Hobbit? Maybe some flicks scheduled for late 2010 could make the switch. Green Lantern in 3-D, anyone?

Which ones should be in 3-D?

In lieu of last night's hush-hush premiere of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot in Austin, to a crowd fully expecting to see mere clips and then The Wrath of Khan instead, we checked our Inbox of the Future (patent pending) to see what other shenanigans the Alamo Drafthouse might have in store for these coming months...

April 15th -- An admitted sneak screening of X-Men Origins: Wolverine was preceded by the director's cut of Australia, with Hugh Jackman himself collecting money at the door as "a favor to Baz." However, many stayed to take advantage of the opportunity to literally stone Roger Friedman in the parking lot. Several Austinites returned their bongs to their cars when they realized that this didn't mean whatever they thought it meant, while others were commissioned to restrain Hitfix's Drew McWeeny when he took to chucking nearby scooters towards the tied-up Friedman -- a sight which left AICN's Massawyrm in equal awe and fear for his property.

May 5th -- What was alleged to be a screening of Piranha II: The Spawning turned out to be the informal premiere of McG's Terminator: Salvation, to the disappointment of many fanboys who had their fingers crossed for Avatar, but would settle for this instead. Compounding the frustrations was the appearance of Linda Hamilton, who proceeded to narrate the film live in person to an annoyed crowd. Tangents included all those weeds she pulled in the garden last week and that couch Jim took in the divorce.

If you were watching the box office over the weekend, you might have noticed that the success of Monsters vs. Aliens has everyone talking about 3D again. Everywhere you look, critics are weighing in on whether 3D really is the wave of the future, or another last gasp of a fad that will fall by the wayside soon enough. Well, I don't know about that, but one thing is for sure; I think we all better get used to wearing those goofy goggles, because another director is looking to get into the 3D game. During a reception at the British Film Institute for director Ridley Scott, he spoke about his upcoming sci-fi actioner, The Forever War, and he told reporters that after getting a glimpse of James Cameron's Avatar, "...I've got to go 3D. It's going to be phenomenal."

The film is based on the 1974 science fiction novel by Joe Haldeman and was announced last October. But, Scott has had his hands full with his Robin Hood update, the story of Gucci, and the inexplicable decision to bring Monopoly to the big screen. Forever War looks to be a little more in line with Scott's usual fare; sci-fi, and politically charged action flicks, and is described as, "Both an action-laden and contemplative story of an interstellar war between humanity and the enigmatic Tauran species, it deals with themes like the inhumanity of both war and its attendant bureaucracy". The book was considered to be a response to the authors own military service during the Vietnam War, even using a 'time-travel glitch' that would return soldiers centuries later as a parallel to the US military experience when soldiers returned home.

Since the release of Beowulf, I have been hoping that a filmmaker would finally get a strong enough story on screen that would complement the technology which has become jaw-dropping. I'll keep my fingers crossed that between Cameron and Scott, the two will make 3D something more than the standard for kids films; or even worse, just another gimmick.

Twelve years ago, they said it couldn't be done. When James Cameron's Titanic got pushed back from a planned summer 1997 release date to the late fall, on top of multiple reports that the budget was the biggest ever, it was commonly thought that the film would never make its money back, that it would break the studios involved, and that Cameron's career was finished.

Cameron returned to the director's chair for Avatar, his long-awaited 3-D science fiction drama, due in December, and it looks like it will be a watershed movie. An upbeat article on 3-D in Time Magazine casually mentions that the budget has exceeded $300 million, which would make it the most expensive movie ever made. [* Time has now updated the article; see below.] No less an authority than Steven Spielberg "predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever," which sounds great, until you realize that very few 3-D live-action films have been made recently. Box Office Mojo lists Spy Kids 3D: Game Over as the top-grossing live-action 3-D release in the US ($111 million) with Journey to the Center of the Earth close behind ($107 million). Avatar will have to do much better to have a prayer of making back its budget.

The biggest concern is that fewer theaters than anticipated have been converted to digital. In the Time Magazine article, Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks Animation "predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week," just in time for the release of his studio's Monsters vs. Aliens on March 27.

What are your impressions of the new, improved 3-D? Did you see My Bloody Valentine or Coraline in 3-D? Will you seek out Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D -- and pay a premium price -- or settle for 2-D? Will Avatar make or break 3-D?

* UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Eric for pointing out that Time has updated their article, which now adds at the end: "The original version of this story misstated the cost of the film Avatar as being in excess of $300 million. The correct figure is in excess of $200 million."