Looks like this 3-D camera he developed has been used in films before. Why didn't they change film forever? Do we expect to enter a new era where everyone uses James Cameron's insane attention to detail in order to make a headdress look realistic, or develop a new language and teach it to actors? The article smells of hype and seems to justify this long-delayed epic "to out-Lucas Lucas."
I'm no film buff, but the cinematography of certain parts of the trailer reminds me of the same second-rate "Lets get a really wide shot of this big computer-generated battle scene" effects-for-the-sake-of-effects schlock that's been shoved down our throats for the past 10 years. The Na'vi look really cool. But every time I see a perfectly framed complete shot of a monster leaping out of some shrubs in slow-motion I want to throw a shoe. We get it. It looks cool and somewhat life-like. Now can you please show us something that's designed to evoke a response other than cooing in delight of your wonderful technical achievements?
We get it. It looks cool and somewhat life-like. Now can you please show us something that's designed to evoke a response other than cooing in delight of your wonderful technical achievements?
We live in a world where people know nothing about cinema except what they see on commercials during the Simpsons. When you make a trailer, you're convincing the masses. You expect cinephiles to ignore trailers anyway.
It's the ultimate amateur mistake to assume a movie trailer is worth anything. It's marketing, and what's more, it's dumb marketing for dumb people.
The sad part is that the trailer gives an impression of what I believe the movie is not at first glance. The title of the project would have been better if changed as well. The title seems like a kids movie and blue anoxeric smurfs do not seem like they would be enticing to adults; however, I really want to see this movie... not because of the trailer but because I like the idea of Cameron returning to what made his films special in the first place. Titanic was a terrible movie and should have been a dud. It was not enjoyable to watch for me, and it was the first and only movie I walked out on. (I returned around the time the boat started sinking.) However, Aliens, Terminator, etc. are some of my favorite movies. To see his talent is to compare his movies to their sequels by other directors. Terminator 3 was terrible. T4 was good, but it did not compare to T1 and T2. And Terminator 2 was one of the only sequels I believe that was actually better than the original. Anyway, I think this movie has promise but the marketing itself has been lacking. They should have focused on the epic aspects of the film in the marketing.
Titanic was a terrible movie and should have been a dud. It was not enjoyable to watch for me, and it was the first and only movie I walked out on.
Say what you will, but Titanic was the best thing that happened to my youth: every girl wanted to see it, over and over again, and no guy could stand it. Perfect.
Agreed. But in my personal experience, most films with generous amounts of realistic-looking CG end up sacrificing what makes films really fun to watch: an engaging story, realistic portrayal and cinematography that brings you into the film instead of sitting in front of it. The visuals are worthless if you can't make people feel something other than "ooh... aah..." and i'm (hopefully incorrectly) assuming this movie - with its highly-anticipated technical wizardry - will follow in the footsteps of its predecessors.
I'm no film buff, but the cinematography of certain parts of the trailer reminds me of the same second-rate "Lets get a really wide shot of this big computer-generated battle scene" effects-for-the-sake-of-effects schlock that's been shoved down our throats for the past 10 years. The Na'vi look really cool. But every time I see a perfectly framed complete shot of a monster leaping out of some shrubs in slow-motion I want to throw a shoe. We get it. It looks cool and somewhat life-like. Now can you please show us something that's designed to evoke a response other than cooing in delight of your wonderful technical achievements?