Quote :

"Where are yall buyin these tix from? I want to go ahead and buy some for the imax in charlotte, but it says "not available yet". It says the same thing when I check the Raleigh one too."

in Raleigh, http://purchase.tickets.com/buy/TicketPurchase?organ_val=22258

there are a ton of shows listed right there

plus you can buy Avatar IMAX tickets in Charlotte from Fandango (Regal Stonecrest at Piper Glen 22)

[Edited on December 12, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .,]

12/12/2009 11:29:03 PM

12/13/2009 5:35:11 PM

that video sucks, its just a green screen

12/13/2009 7:58:29 PM

^ i like that joke

12/13/2009 8:10:00 PM

the comments on that video were officially the most intelligent i've ever read on youtube

12/13/2009 9:59:08 PM

I'm pretty excited for this movie. I was super skeptical a few months ago but after reading and seeing extended trailers, I'm hooked.

12/14/2009 4:47:43 PM

92% now! 47 fresh, only 4 rotten...

12/14/2009 9:20:11 PM

is anyone else turned off by movies that blatantly over use CGI effects>

12/15/2009 12:06:34 AM

troll much?

12/15/2009 12:32:26 AM

^^Some movies yes. This one..NO. How else would you possibly make it? I dont mind CGI to tell stories that would be pretty much impossible with traditional movie making.

12/15/2009 12:37:29 AM

If you're some how saying that movies back in the day were better because there was no cgi then you're just trolling. Special effects have never been better and this movie is another great advancement in that field.

12/15/2009 1:16:53 AM

I was defending AVATAR. How else would you make this movie without badass CGI.


I think you totally miscomprehended what I said.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 1:49 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2009 1:47:56 AM

Hopefully the dvd will have a director's cut that's all claymation.`

12/15/2009 1:52:28 AM

i will only watch wizard of oz in grayscale because that's how i think films should have remained.

12/15/2009 3:20:47 AM

clearly this is the technology of the future...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-hHwQ32UoE#movie_player

12/15/2009 8:13:44 AM

Sometimes I wish they would bring back deadly, all live-action, stunt-based action flicks with creative sci-fi premises. The final sequence in Road Warrior is more jaw-dropping than anything made since with CGI. Those are real people crashing real motorcycles at real fucking speeds - it makes you squirm.

12/15/2009 8:51:00 AM

Quote :

"I was defending AVATAR. How else would you make this movie without badass CGI. I think you totally miscomprehended what I said."

sorry, that was directed at red baron, not you. I was posting from my phone and was too lazy to include the ^^

12/15/2009 9:00:53 AM

^^ ftw

12/15/2009 9:02:02 AM

Im not trolling. I am a big fan of James Cameron, even "Titanic" was pretty good. All I am saying is that when the whole movie is just actors in front of a green screen, it takes away from the realism. CGI in limited blended use is fine, when its blended with live action, real sets and actual real effects. Take "T2", the limited use of CGI was pretty good because they didnt over do it. Take "Aliens", my favorite Cameron film, the effects were awesome and there was no CGI. They used models and sets and realistic looking animatronics. Hell even the original "Terminator", using scale to place real actors in front of the model robot machines for the future scenes looks more real than CGI. Now I will concede that the final endo-skeleton scene in "Terminator" looks pretty bad, but it was a low budget movie at the time. Had they had the budget to build a more realistic looking animatronic robot for the end I bet it would look cool. I liked "Titanic" because most of it was a huge elaborate set, and it looked real. They built a large scale replica of the ship that they could sink to film on, and it looked good. I would say that a large highly detailed scale model of the Titanic would have looked better than the CGI shots that they did use. All I am saying is that special effects have come a long way, but most CGI now looks more fake then some of the old stuff, and its way over used. The best effects are the ones you dont notice or wonder how they did that. And lets bring back set building as well, instead of just a screen to stand in front of.

Im not trolling though, I like Cameron and I hope this movie is good with a cool story like his other stuff, as opposed to just a visual CGI fest. Otherwise he will go the way of "The Phantom Menace".

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2009 10:45:28 AM

^Find him a place that exists on earth so he can film this movie in non CGI...oh and thats inhabited by blue people.

12/15/2009 10:55:45 AM

ya know there are plenty of exotic places on earth that could pass as an alien planet...but way to miss my point

12/15/2009 11:10:26 AM

He's said he didn't want ANYTHING that looked like earth, CGI was the only way this could work.

Oh, and I love the Alien franchise as much as the next guy, but the "guy in a suit" xenomorph is frankly laughable compared to what they could do today.

12/15/2009 11:50:45 AM

Quote :

"ya know there are plenty of exotic places on earth that could pass as an alien planet...but way to miss my point"

You didn't have a point. You're ok with alien worlds looking like places on earth or movie studio lots. We're not. That was fine and good 20 years ago but not today. We expect more and better. Thanks to computers we can have that.

do movies like Indiana Jones need to be CGI? no...they actually look better when they're done old school style with stunt men and movie sets like the originals...

but movies like this that is not enough.

12/15/2009 12:10:20 PM

no my point was that CGI works best when blended with live sets and effects, and its not over done. I think there is a happy middle ground.

12/15/2009 12:22:59 PM

there is no happy middle ground. CGI works best when the CGI is done well. Regardless if there are real sets or not. When you're in outer space you don't actually film on a real set, you film infront of a green screen and fill in the cosmos, nebulas etc later.

Just like when you're on an alien world you don't want to see a blend of pine trees and glowing trees.

12/15/2009 12:27:40 PM

i'm really getting pumped for this.

12/15/2009 12:31:42 PM

Quote :

"Im not trolling. I am a big fan of James Cameron, even "Titanic" Aquaman was pretty good."

12/15/2009 12:32:51 PM

Yea man, Aquaman out-grossed Spiderman...

12/15/2009 12:35:35 PM

How can you even feel that strongly against his use of CGI when the entire premise of his movie was to do exactly that? He postponed it for how many years until technology caught up to his vision? Excusing the fact that 50 some critics have said it's a visual masterpiece and will change the way we look at film forever. (Granted, this sounds a bit fanboy-ish and that they're on his nuts but don't you think you should at least have an open mind when going into the theater?)

12/15/2009 1:19:53 PM

I can't take cartoons seriously because they are drawings and my brain can't interpret what it sees unless it's a recording of live-action film.

12/15/2009 1:43:31 PM

If done right, guys in a suit look perfectly fine. See Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

12/15/2009 1:45:06 PM

^Planet of the Apes would have been a better example i think. The original especially considering how old it is.

12/15/2009 2:00:34 PM

Quote :

"don't you think you should at least have an open mind when going into the theater?)"

I do have an open mind. I have not criticized the movie, just CGI in general. I hope it is good, as I have said before, I like Cameron. But I hope its not just "a visual masterpiece", but also a good story.

12/15/2009 2:40:35 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and I love the Alien franchise as much as the next guy, but the "guy in a suit" xenomorph is frankly laughable compared to what they could do today."

i would argue that any change wouldn't work as well. it's the black as night, sleek, drooling, eyeless creature that makes it simple and scary as fuck. CGI would (and did in Resurrection) ruin the aliens.

but in Avatar's case they are blue and 9ft tall with tails so the opposite is probably true.

12/15/2009 11:56:46 PM

^ I was about to post the same thing.

The first two Alien films were great because you the creatures were largely unseen and would just yank people into the shadows while showing minimal alien. The first was more of a haunted house movie that didn't show the whole alien for a long shot until the final duel, while the second was more of a war films that would gave you more shots of the creatures, but was still fairly conservative.

The third one was shit largely because of the story, but also because they attempted to animate the alien with very insufficient CGI. By Resurrection they'd abandoned the mysterious alien vibe for the sake of LETS MAKE THEM SWIM!!!

As far as AVP I and II...well...

The point is that working the limitations of a guy in a suit into the filmmaking is what made it great as sci-fi/horror. It's a completely different dynamic as Avatar is trying to create an alien that walks around during the day, has significant screen time and is supposed to generate some empathy with the viewer.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2009 12:13:36 AM

Quote :

"He postponed it for how many years until technology caught up to his vision?"

I would make the point that he probably should have waited a bit longer, but I realize that the field doesn't advance if everyone sits around and waits for the field to advance.

Quote :

"is anyone else turned off by movies that blatantly over use CGI effects>"

I agree. After watching the trailer my first impression wasn't the best and it was because of the CG. I'm sure people will read all kind of things into that statement. Like I'm trying to make a claim that the silent film era movies were better or that I'm somehow making a statement that the director's vision could have been executed better by not using CGI. All I'm saying is that the CGI was obvious and that it created a negative first impression. Your trailer should not remind me of the Gungan/droid skirmish in TPM.

Quote :

"I can't take cartoons seriously because they are drawings and my brain can't interpret what it sees unless it's a recording of live-action film."

Nice, but the thing about cartoons... they don't try to pass themselves off as live action. Movies like Beowulf, Sky Captain, etc. can get away with it because they aren't attempting to pass the visuals off as real/live action. The art direction sets a certain expectation that the rest of the movie will either meet or fail to meet.

The only real way that CGI brings down the quality of a movie (for me at least) is when it stands out from every other thing you've seen up to that point. In short it looks out of place and calls attention to itself. So in a movie like Avatar if the environment and aliens set a certain expectation, which for me is a bit cartoony, simply splicing in footage of real people here and there will look out of place by contrast.

I guess you could, and probably will, argue that the contrast exists simply because you have humans on an alien world. I just happen to think that it looks a bit like the humans invaded Toonville from Roger Rabbit, except Toonville just happens to be in HD this time around.

Maybe they pulled it off more seamlessly than the trailer I watched indicates. This is all just a personal tastes thing anyway.

12/16/2009 7:57:44 AM

Quote :

"i would argue that any change wouldn't work as well. it's the black as night, sleek, drooling, eyeless creature that makes it simple and scary as fuck. CGI would (and did in Resurrection) ruin the aliens."

Notice I said "today" and not "1997"

12/16/2009 8:30:51 AM

I'm pretty sure nobody will give a shit about the CGI once the movie gets going. I really feel like most of the apprehension towards it is a result of trailers, where there is no established context on which to generate some feeling/connection for the characters in the film. I think that once people go to see the movie, get to know the world of the movie, and get to know the characters and mechanics of what is going on in the movie, then the CGI will become less of an issue as long as immersion (hopefully) takes hold.

12/16/2009 9:02:15 AM

Got tickets for midnight imax in 3d!

12/16/2009 9:03:28 AM

i am wanting to see this

12/16/2009 9:21:08 AM

I can't believe i just paid $17 for a movie ticket.

12/16/2009 10:23:50 AM

^ no dice

I think I'm gonna stick to the regular movie theater

12/16/2009 10:39:06 AM

Yeah. It's actually a deal because the regular (non-3d) imax tickets are also $15. So no extra charge for the 3d. I would normally be with ya there, but Star Trek was so impressive at the imax that it's worth the extra few dollars for imax.

12/16/2009 10:43:11 AM

jbtilley Im glad you agree with me. You pretty much summed up what I was trying to say

Quote :

"All I'm saying is that the CGI was obvious and that it created a negative first impression. Your trailer should not remind me of the Gungan/droid skirmish in TPM."

Quote :

"The only real way that CGI brings down the quality of a movie (for me at least) is when it stands out from every other thing you've seen up to that point. In short it looks out of place and calls attention to itself. So in a movie like Avatar if the environment and aliens set a certain expectation, which for me is a bit cartoony, simply splicing in footage of real people here and there will look out of place by contrast. I guess you could, and probably will, argue that the contrast exists simply because you have humans on an alien world. I just happen to think that it looks a bit like the humans invaded Toonville from Roger Rabbit, except Toonville just happens to be in HD this time around."

12/16/2009 4:25:31 PM

if this movie is so great, how did michelle rodriguez get a major role?

12/16/2009 4:31:47 PM

Other than Weaver, she is the only name I recognize. Looks like they went with relatively unknowns.

12/16/2009 4:45:23 PM

Eh I saw Star Trek in both IMAX and regular theaters, I'd say unless it has sections that are actually filmed for IMAX, (like in The Dark Knight) it's not really worth the extra $$

12/16/2009 6:06:08 PM

smurfs

12/16/2009 6:36:16 PM

michelle rodriguez sucks so bad

12/16/2009 6:55:41 PM

Grrrrrr....Im a tough Latina chica with attitude who does manly things but is still kinda sexy.

We get it, you suck

[Edited on December 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2009 8:51:47 AM