You're comparing Sky Captain with Jurassic Park?

But thanks for bringing up Sky Captain. I'd forgotten about that film, and it makes me worry for Avatar. Watching the performances I just felt like something was missing. The actors just felt detached in their reactions from the scenery. And no, I'm not talking about when they had to interact with the scenery, I mean when they were merely talking to each other. I could just feel like these were simply people standing in an empty room. Perhaps that was due to the actors used, but I'll be interested to see if I get the same feeling from Avatar.

Replies in the spoiler.

I saw Star Trek in IMAX and I thought it was an excellent way to see it. But then I was near the centre of the theatre, which probably helped.

In terms of technological filmmaking, they were similarly groundbreaking. Admittedly, no one's bothered to build much on Sky Captain's plot (Sin City and 300 are the only things that come to mind), probably because it's marshland (overextended metaphors FTW!), but there was definitely innovation there.

That said, are you implying that Jurassic Park, with such classic dialogue as "It's a UNIX system! I know this!", is really that much better than Sky Captain?

I compare Sky Captain, Jurassic Park, and Avatar because all of them were groundbreaking in their use of technology but had really goofy stories and one-dimensional characters.

The exception, of course, was Star Wars, which was both groundbreaking in its technology *and* was a truly fantastic story. Words can't say how much hope I had for the prequels and how that hope was relentlessly smashed into tiny bits by George Lucas.

Random thought: Any relation between George Lucas and Lucas Industries (i.e., Lucas, Prince of Darkness)?

My favorite bit of Jurassic Park was when they were in the jeep running from the tyrannosaur, and the camera view of the tyrannosaur is through the rear-view mirror. The camera shifts focus to the mirror itself where we see the ubiquitous "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."

Just a little three-second drop-in, but clever.

tanstaafl.

Rear-view mirrors don't have that inscription. Was it a side mirror?

Yes, he meant side-view. Didn't you see the film? It was a great gag. Everyone loves that one.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/T-rex2.jpg

Following up on drakino's spoilered discussion...

Yes

tanstaafl.

Yeah, it just wasn't all that memorable.

TV Tropes doesn't seem to allow linking to images unless you've already visited the site, so: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CloserThanTheyAppear

I wasn't arguing about technological filmmaking. I was commenting on "Does anybody look back at Jurassic Park as epic cinema?" I'm not sure exactly what he means by that, but yes, I think everyone looks back on it that way! I mean, those first fly-over shots of the island (with the very memorable theme playing), those sweeping fields of dinosaurs, how is it not "epic?"

I just couldn't possibly think of those movies as equals. I really disliked Sky Captain. Besides, if you ask anyone on the street, I'd bet that 9 out of 10 wouldn't remember Sky Captain but would remember Jurassic Park, despite how recently each one was released.

I thought I wasn't going to like Sky Captain from first seeing the trailers. But I loved it. I quite liked Jurassic when I first saw it, but I think if I saw them both again this weekend, I'd prefer Sky Captain.

My favourite bit as that even with 8 networked Connection Machine CM-5's they don't have a swapfile turned on anywhere, as the relatively simple act of compiling code will cause random processes to die as they only have a finite amount of memory apparently.

Doesn't surprise me. You saw how "together" their developer was.

Saw it in 2D today, and I have to say while it held up decently, 3D did help enhance the movie quite a bit. Interestingly, some things in the movie in 3D were just flat with no attempt to make it look 3D in the 2D version. For example, all the photos of the Na'vi that are seen in the remote lab are just flat photographs instead of the hologram ones.

I saw it a couple of days ago the overall effect was very good, it was only off-putting a couple of times and I was very impressed, and I would tell you straight out if I thought it was a pointless gimmick!

Main downside was the cheap specs (which they (Apollo Cinemas) didn't charge for unlike some! If I see many more in 3D I might see if you can buy higher quality glasses with proper nose pads.

Somebody sent me this article about the original screenplay. It answered many of my questions (and most of yours I think), bascially the movie we saw was vastly cut down and a lot of things which could have even been quickly explained were left out:

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html

If you liked the movie and was slightly frustrated then it's worth a read to get the gist of the screenplay without having to read the whole thing!

In this article Cameron says he will write a novel, which I imagine will be the original screenplay modified to fit the movie:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXOYzLx-6QscSpCcZrBlfjmJ5mGAD9CNRKEG0

edit: One gripe, I thought that the Avatar of Grace (Sigourney Weaver) was slightly too much like her, to the point of it being distracting. In some movies I like the fact that I don't know the actors, and her face in the Pandora world was annoying.

Hmm... seems like Avatar is kinda like The Abyss (another Cameron movie), with huge plot elements removed in the final cut. Who knows, maybe they actually have this some of stuff on film and will do a director's cut.

Saw it today in 3D digital projection. First time seeing a digital projection. Wasn't much impressed with that. As long as I have a choice, it will be film I go to see.

Avatar, while full of eye candy, was oh so predictable.

Box Office Stats for Avatar

This too.

I saw it last night in 3D, here is what I thought about it....

3D - For me a total gimmick that added little to the telling of the story and acted as a distraction most of the time. Wide shots seemed to have no 3D effect at all while close up shots seemed to be more like layers of 2D rather than real 3D. At no point did I feel I was in the movie or the movie feel like it was coming at me.

Story - For a film of it's length very little of the story was developed beyond the blinking obvious. Dialogue was pretty weak and had little depth.

Animation - I felt like I was watching a badly acted intro for a computer game that lasts 3 hours. I still think the technology is light years off being realistic and in a few years time we will look back at it an laugh. Although impressive I never really felt transported beyond what was clearly a computer generated landscape with people added in here and there. The most impressive work I have seen of this kind but still off the mark for me.

£18.50 VIP Cinema experience - At our local cinema it works out to be around £8 extra and for the food and drinks you get, as well as one of the best view I have ever had at the cinema it was overall worth it. We had seats in a gallery that were above the projectors, so you were looking slightly down on the screen which seemed strange at first, but it was a lot easier on the eye.

Unfortunately in Manchester £18.50 isn't quite enough to get rid of all knob heads and we did have some annoying people sat next to us who sat in our seats and refused to move, the staff were typically useless. The free popcorn and nachos also ensured you had an added surround sound track of every single person around you munching rather than every other. They were a bit further away from you and there was a nice amount of leg room too.

So overall, I wouldn't see Avatar twice. It was an enjoyable film, but as a non-fan of Sci-fi this film suffers from all the same problems that every other film in the genre I have ever seen. Such a shame as I think with a better writer it could have been a real epic.

Cheers

Cris.

The 3D does one important thing for me. It makes complex action sequences, or scenes with a lot of visual noise, more easy for my brain to parse.

One of the problems I've had with action films is the inability to tell what's going on during visually complex scenes. Film directors have been trying to "push" this envelope as action movies have become more advanced in recent years, and in many films this has crossed some kind of a line in my old addled brain.

The 3D gives my brain more data to help parse the onscreen information, and lets the directors push that line a little farther without losing me.

Of course, this just means they'll push it more...

There's seldom really any useful plot information in an action scene anyway. It's just eye candy. I've long been of the opinion that they should just leave them out. I don't go to the movies to see that kind of thing, at least not any more. If I want big explosions and whatnot, a video game is more immersing anyway.

Spectacular visuals is about the only reason I go to the theater anymore. They've got to be combined with a decent movie that I'm otherwise interested in of course, but I'd rather just watch most other movies at home.

A movie needs more than just plot to score amazingly high marks in my books. In some movies, the action and visuals greatly add to the artist appeal.

I'll probably see Avatar in the theater, but despite all the good press, it's still not pulling me with the force of a "must see" flick.

I would partially agree with you, but I do like to see really well done action sequences, and I think it is possible for them to add to the film overall. For example the opening scene of Quantum of Solace is an action packed scene which ends with Bond opening the boot of his car to reveal the reason for the whole scene.

Avatar, to me, doesn't have the depth to the story to back up the action. It's just all action. I think it's a shame that directors are dumbing down cinema on a continuing basis. After all isn't the point of cinema to tell a tale? What's so wrong with doing it well? Some of my favourite movies of all time have no explosions, no car chases and almost no action at all. They still made it to the list.

Cheers

Cris.

I didn't say anything about visuals. I said "action scenes". Even so, I'll admit I overstated my case a little bit.

A movie that is all action, though, is just boring. An action scene should be there to heighten the emotion that the audience is feeling. If it's all action, then you can't heighten it. It's like audio level compression. If it's all loud, why bother?

That's not to say that there isn't a place for an all-action movie, but it feels like that's all that comes out any more. (Also hyperbole.)

Right, but if I'm paying to see eye candy, it helps if I can parse all of it. The 3D really helped me there.

I'm just as interested in a pretty movie, or an action movie, as I am interested in a deep movie. All of those things are valid. Avatar certainly didn't fall into the latter category, but that doesn't make it a mediocre film in my book. I thought it was a great experience.

Sure, its plot was entirely predictable, and done before. Its message about the environment and about conquerors' treatment of indigenous populations was heavy handed and was obviously the entire reason for making the film. But I'll give the movie this bit of credit: Despite all the predictability, the film still swept me along with it and had me rooting for the Navi all along. I found it exciting, beautiful, and enjoyable to watch.