comment #1

rayciscon says ...

What has me apprehensive is the script. I appears to be chock full of previous Cameron tropes and recent movie cliches.

He also did himself a HUGE disservice by using the term "game-changing". If it doesn't come through, Avatar WILL be the Segway of blockbuster movies.

comment #2

RSBrown says ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

comment #3

DavidF says ...

This movie could suck.
This movie could bomb.
This movie could be one of the coolest things ever.

I'm not going to jump to any conclusions based on the trailer.

I will only say two things:
1) I don't think Cameron has made a single BAD movie. I look at his filmography and see basically nothing but great movies.

2) Today the Titanic narrative is about how lame the screenplay is and how it never should have won the Oscars it did and how it's only the #1 film of all time because girls like Leo DiCaprio.
I would remind everyone that around August 1997 people were expecting it to be a bigger bomb than Waterworld.

Also, I don't get the people bashing Cameron's writing. He might churn out the odd lame line (oh, and Titanic has a few) but this is the man who wrote Aliens, Terminator, T2 and The Abyss damn well knows how to write a movie. (Hell, Spider-Man contained elements he'd written in his scripment.) He falls flat sometimes but he CAN write screenplays.

comment #4

dp4m says ...

Jeff - I'm STILL not sure why that's the opinion. Is there any reason to doubt that what's being shown tonight is basically the same (if not exact same) footage as has already been seen at SDCC? Was any footage in the trailer anything "new" from that previously released footage (I'm asking; I've not seen the SDCC reel)?

Why are we expecting a maybe 10% footage dump (the SDCC reel) and a 2m trailer of a likely 140m film to include all, some or even ANY of the "holy crap" moments? And, let's face it, a film like this will revolve around their "holy crap" moments...

comment #5

Craig Kennedy says ...

As one who found the online trailer decidedly underwhelming, I have to say it plays much better on a big screen. Saw it last night ahead of Inglourious Basterds. It still wasn't a "game changer," but maybe it's good the online trailer let a bit of gas out of an over-inflated balloon and people's expectations are more grounded.

If so, they're more likely to be impressed by the 15 3-D minutes they get tonight.

I still say "visuals shmisuals." Give me a story and characters I can sink my teeth into, but no trailer alone is ever going to deliver that alone.

comment #6

Rich S. says ...

With the benefit of hindsight, it's pretty clear they've kind of botched the marketing of this thing, at least so far. Probably should have gone something like this:

1) Premiere footage at SDCC. At the same time, release a trailer that shows the human stuff and the characters looking in awe at....something. But hold the money shots back. The people from SDCC spread a "you ain't seen nothing yet" buzz.

2) Have "Avatar Day." Then, AFTER Avatar Day, release the longer teaser. That way, instead of having the handful of people that saw it at SDCC, you now have tens of thousands of people to spread the word: "I know the trailer may not look like a big deal, but trust me, you ain't seen nothing yet."

But what's done is done. Now we've just got to wait for the real thing.

comment #7

p.Vice says ...

I've always imagined what you'd sound like with a thick Howard Cosell voice, Jeff.

The movie is clearly NOT beyond Rings/Delgo/Ferngully etc. Why? Because despite having no dialogue you can pretty much glean an entire movie in 2 1/2 minutes.

Act 1 - Paralyzed military guy enters avatar and explores new world.

Act 2 - Military guy discovers he likes the aliens more than the power-hungry military.

Act 3 - Military guy now helps aliens fight against military.

Anything that breaks down that easily is not looking good.

Oh, could I be wrong? Ask yourself this: How much money did Cameron and Fox spend on this? Do movies that cost that much money historically take chances with narrative, plot, character writing, etc?

comment #8

caslab says ...

I don't understand why the trailer wasn't released tonight AFTER the preview . . . I thought that was the whole point of "Avatar Day."

comment #9

RSBrown says ...

p.Vice,

The question is WHY does he like the aliens over the power-hungry military. Of course, it probably has something to do with the blue chick...But, hey, it has always been the journey, no? Never the destination.

Kind of like the whole marketing journey of "Avatar"...Part of me believes--in the end--waiting for the movie will have been infinitely more fun. In the end, s'just another flicker-show.

comment #10

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I actually believe you, Wells. Let's face it, you're always critical of big budget Hollywood movies, you often talk shit and poo-poo those kind of movies.

If you say that Avatar is worth waiting for, then I'm more inclined to believe you over a bunch of rabid fanboys.

comment #11

Travis Crabtree says ...

"The question is WHY does he like the aliens over the power-hungry military."

Haven't you seen any of Cameron's other films? It's because the military guys are a bunch of dumb, knuckle-dragging drones led by psychotic, wild-eyed, blood-thirsty sadists.
The aliens are groovy, mellow, sensitive, sweater-wearing types who know about things like poetry and crying.

It's a no-brainer.

comment #12

rayciscon says ...

Travis,

That's EXACTLY why this movie won't do Titanic type business.

The fanboys don't want to watch a movie about Indians oppressed by imperialistic white men (whoops! that was Dances with Wolves).

Fanboys don't want to watch a movie about blue, smelly, tree-hugging hippies, they want to see a group of good guys they can identify with (not the blue hippies) kill people/aliens and blow stuff up.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... HUGE opening weekend, 2nd weekend a drop of at least 60% as word of mouth spreads.

comment #13

RSBrown says ...

But...I like poetry and crying.
I dunno', maybe I'm just being difficult.

comment #14

Joe McDonald says ...

I have one concern about the script.

Paralyzed guy in wheelchair comes to primal and mysterious environment, and finds that in some way he can walk again. He regains his sense of purpose and becomes fiercely protective of that environment as a result.

LOST is an awesome tv show.

comment #15

Sonic Boom says ...

I'll be at Lincoln Square tonight. I've been trying not to get that hyped up but it's hard not to.

comment #16

SpinDozer says ...

Panasonic Corp. has signed on James Cameron and his upcoming film, 'Avatar', in an advertising blitz for its TVs equipped with 3-D technology. Panasonic is planning to start selling 3-D TVs in 2010...

comment #17

DavidF says ...

I'm a bit baffled by the descriptions here implying Cameron is anti-military.

He's not Michael Bay but it certainly seems clear to me the dude loves guns and soldiers. Sure, Michael Bien goes nuts in The Abyss and Hudson is a (loveable) dick in Aliens, but I TOTALLY disagree that he portrays soldiers as dumb, knucle-draggers.

Aliens - to use his most soldiery film - clearly has no love for Burke, the corporate snake. but it LOVES the soldiers, their guns, their ethos.

Whether that will bring in $$$, I don't know. But the suggestion this Republican gun nut will make some hippie movie strikes me as awfully unlikely.

comment #18

Joe McDonald says ...

I don't think its fair to label Cameron as either a "Republican gun nut" or a "tree hugging hippie." His narrative features all show a love for the blue-collar work ethic, be it embodied by the soldiers in ALIENS or the oil workers in THE ABYSS. His background as a truck driver is entwined with both Terminator movies (he wrote the script for the first while driving a truck, and the second features a major action sequence involving a semi). So clearly he's got some conservativism in him, but is that all there is to him?

Since Titanic he's focused on nature documentaries, suggesting that he also has a strong ecological interest. His movies have never been pro-corporations, whether they be "The Company" from Aliens or Cyberdyne Systems in the Terminator movies. So clearly he values the environment more than he does just making a buck at its expense.

One of the reasons I find Cameron so fascinating (and make no mistake, even though I have reservations about Avatar, I have no doubt that it will be a fascinating addition to a remarkable career) is that he can't just be pigeonholed into whatever agenda a viewer would like. He's more complex than that, and that gives his films a depth and richness that makes them last. Aliens is just some soldiers blowing up bugs except that it's also about gender issues, Vietnam, chain of command and profit margins. The Terminator is about a robot trying to kill a woman except that it's also about whether or not the future is set, fate, the protective maternal instinct, and what makes a good father figure. So from what we have gleaned from Avatar there's not a lot going on, but I am willing to hope that the finished product brings some intangibles to the table that we're not expecting.

comment #19

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I'm going to the 7:00 screening and I have tickets to the 8:15 District 9 afterwards. Hope one doesn't ruin the impact of the other.

comment #20

dp4m says ...

Even in The Abyss though... the military wasn't "bad." You had a thoroughly crazy -- via external influence NOT because he was military -- Navy SEAL team leader in a crisis situation. His guys are trained to follow his orders (which they do, even if grudgingly and questioningly) but they're NOT insane or evil and even go so far as to realize he's gone off the deep end and surreptitiously removes the ammunition from the man's gun. And then as soon as he's removed from the picture get back into "helping the oil workers" mode.

Combine that with even some throwaway lines in the original Terminator from Henricksen and Winfield about previous lives as soldiers (if I am recalling it properly) and it shows, anti-war message of The Abyss aside, that he may dislike war but feels pretty strong love feelings towards the people who fight them on our behalf.

comment #21

Travis Crabtree says ...

Before this thread bursts into flames.... I did NOT mean any of the above to be taken as a political observation.

I don't know / care about Cameron's politics.

It's just that "Avatar" is reminding me of "The Abyss". And Cameron's always struck me as an old hippy, sort of a John Carpenter-Lite. Again, that's not always a bad thng. It just...is.

comment #22

dp4m says ...

It's funny, Travis, because some of the "best" (and by "best" I mean not-evil / non-bumbling) portrayals of the military in genre-fare that I generally appreciate have been The Thing and Aliens... ;)

But good point about your disclaimer. I wouldn't have thought as such but given your other postings in other threads some folks may not have distinguished the message from the messenger (an all too sad occurance these days :()...

comment #23

QualityGibberish says ...

As far as I'm concerned, the mentality of this post and the general drift of the whole site is as low-life Joe Popcorn, Entertainment Tonight-level trivial as it can be. "What kind of money will it make?" And on and on and on like that, speculating about commerce and a film's prospective appeal to the various subgroups of its potential audience. I think Jeff fancies himself as more elevated and intellectual than that and I think he is, too. Why, then, this incessant pandering to the mundane, bottom-line aspects of the biz? Why does every form of analysis, and there are some worthwhile bits in this post, come down to an evaluation of box-office prospects? Who the hell cares?!!!? I know the studios do, but what about the art? What about the enjoyment of film as art, which has many more aspects to it than are ever broached here. So are we being elevated in our appreciation or degraded? Degraded, obviously, IMO. We are the poison of which we complain.

Do you judge a VanGogh by how much money it made during his lifetime? Not saying there are any artists of that stature in the film business, but when all we ever talk about is business it's a certainty there never will be, either.

comment #24

Jeffrey Overstreet says ...

p.Vice wrote:
"Act 1 - Paralyzed military guy enters avatar and explores new world.
Act 2 - Military guy discovers he likes the aliens more than the power-hungry military.
Act 3 - Military guy now helps aliens fight against military.
Anything that breaks down that easily is not looking good."

Interesting. I saw "District 9" today, and that is pretty close to the break-down of *that* film.

comment #25

citizenmilton says ...

I find myself in agreement w/ Jeffrey on a disturbingly consistent basis - not just films, but the analysis behind the films, politics, celeb culture - you name it... but this is one instance where I'm not sure our appraisals will match.

I just got back from the Avatar Day 20 minute preview.

Single moment of romantic Cameron-penned atrocious dialogue aside, it's a massive epochal event IMO.

I saw the preview before catching "Basterds" in Tom Delay's former district - a contender for flag-wavin' red-state libertarian fatbelly grease-guns'n'ESPN capital of Texas. And that film was misintepreted to a disturbing degree. This was an audience savoring for moral simplicity. They chanted "USA! USA! USA! At the end credits." This is the crowd packing heat at health care town halls. And this seemed to be the worst movie at the worst possible time, in terms of cultural context.

Avatar seems to tease the best of all worlds - a reason to forego my Blu-Ray in favor of IMAX 3-D. For a popcorn flick, it at least seems to aspire to some degree of moral complexity, sure, Cameron's lens is a relatively juvenile one, but, at least the aspiration is there. And although it doesn't look like a singular revolution in CGI, virtual filmmaking - in terms of any specific techniques - there's a vast array of micro-revolutions that cumulatively result in a genuine sense of wonder. Something I may get on an all-too-infrequent basis from flicks like The Hurt Locker, Man on Wire, or Encounters at the end of the World.... but here it is, a genuine popcorn gigantic box office flick delivering the same sense of wonder. Everyone I saw it with used the word "amazed" and I can't remember the last time I felt that way with a pre-destined box office hit. The last I felt this way was (the original pre-sequel-dissolution) Matrix, but, fresh off of Bound, I wasn't expecting something like that. With AVATAR, the possibility is known going in.

Off this first preview - it's going to deliver. I'm dying to see the rest of it. The 20-minute preview glimpses something that seems so epic, in relation this IS the equivalent for a trailer for it... there was no other way to properly tease it - it's THAT different. The only way to tease it was this.

I'm stunned. I can't wait till mid-Dec.

comment #26

DeeZee says ...

Jeff: Cameron's stock went down when he kept being indecisive about his post-Titanic gig. Even if Avatar dazzled more people, it was always going to come off as anti-climactic, because it was safe, rather than interesting. The guy should have just had fun with his next gig, rather than trying to out-do himself. Though I do love the irony of Rothman cheap-shitting AVP, X3[Though I'm actually one of that movie's few defenders. And apparently Ebert is, too.], and DB:E, but betting the farm on Jim's vanity project. At least those franchises had fan-bases. Seriously, you'd think the studio would have learned from Cleopatra, which Titanic almost ended up being, too.

David: "I don't think Cameron has made a single BAD movie"

Even Piranha II?

"Today the Titanic narrative is about how lame the screenplay is and how it never should have won the Oscars it did and how it's only the #1 film of all time because girls like Leo DiCaprio."

Emphasis on girls like Leo Dicaprio.

"But the suggestion this Republican gun nut will make some hippie movie strikes me as awfully unlikely."

Um, you did see Titanic, right?

Vice: "How much money did Cameron and Fox spend on this?"

At least $230 million, if THR is accurate.

"Do movies that cost that much money historically take chances with narrative, plot, character writing, etc?"

No, but they're better at money shots than Avatar's teaser is right now.

Deaf: I believe Avatar might be good, too, but I'm still not sure if it's a must-see.

Ray: The real question is not how well it'll do opening weekend, but how many people will pay the IMAX tax to see it in 3-d? The future of the industry depends on that answer. Hell, even as popular as Watchmen was in IMAX, that sucker still ended up being unprofitable. Forget the Segway analogy. This is DV all over again.

BTW, why do people keep acting like the Matrix was a "game-changer"? Are there really that many American movie-goers who never saw Ghost in the Shell, Hard-Boiled, or Fist of Legend before the Wachowski "homage" version? Seriously, that just says it all about how mediocre the 90s was for Hollywood movies that people considered the Matrix to be "ground-breaking".

comment #27

bluefugue says ...

>I will only say two things:
1) I don't think Cameron has made a single BAD movie. I look at his filmography and see basically nothing but great movies.

(snipped etc.)

I agree with all this. Cameron has been extremely consistent over the last quarter century. Titanic is a grand spectacle that, in its final act, takes us right to the maw of death and provides an emotional payoff that's almost unique in commercial cinema. The Abyss is hobbled by a weak ending but also contains one of the most wrenchingly tense and moving scenes ever committed to celluloid (the drowning) -- it is, among other things, one of the greatest love scenes ever filmed. Aliens and Terminator are unqualified masterpieces; T2 very nearly on the same level, and arguably a better movie than the less-flawed T1 merely by dint of its more epic scope and more refined direction. True Lies is the only one of his films after Piranha 2 that I might accept being called a failure, but I still find it to be one of the most entertaining and slickly-directed "Bond" movies around.

I don't expect Cameron totally to transcend his previous story tropes and preoccupations any more than I ever expected it from Hitchcock or John Ford or Tarantino. Filmmakers tend to make the same movie again and again, and the shift in details or refinement of technique is what provides the necessary variety. (Kubrick is a rare exception IMO -- from Strangelove to 2001 to Clockwork to Paths of Glory to Eyes Wide Shut, he covered an unusually wide range, which is one of the reasons he's on the short list of greatest directors of all time.) Avatar at the very least looks like it will be very different, visually, from Cameron's previous work, and the hope is that he will apply the full force of modern effects to his vision. Will it suck? Anything's possible. But I have some faith in this guy, because he's damn well earned it; and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I've actually seen the movie.