Avatar teaser trailer online

[Snoogans]

This is supposedly going to be bigger than the biggest thing ever.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2804482585/

Being a hopeless eye-candy junkie, I'm really looking forward to this one!

[Endrik]

during the first half of the trailer, there were some pretty nice shots, during the second half with the computer game graphics It made me curious if it's a joke like Bilal's "Immortel"?

[Snoogans]

I'm pretty sure that's not the finished graphics. They've spent gazillions on state-of-the-art 3D CGI, and they're keeping it all pretty hushed up.

[Alvin_Wilson]

Excellent! I've been looking forward to seeing this one. Thanks for posting the link, Snoogans.

[Endrik]

I'm pretty sure that's not the finished graphics. They've spent gazillions on state-of-the-art 3D CGI, and they're keeping it all pretty hushed up.

Maybe but some are using that kind of graphics with purpose. For example "Immortel" was purposely done with cheesy computer game graphics from year 2001 or something. It's a kinda of a "niche". I didn't liked it but many did for some reason. That was one STRANGE flick.
That being said I believe Cameron is not that kind of guy. He always seems to focus on high quality details and whatnot. But you'll never know.

I recently saw District 9 and although I'm usually not a fan of that type of cinematography it looked pretty cool, the CGI stuff was well made specially considering that the budget was small (30 mil USD) for that kind of movie.

But that's nothing. Most of the time I'm disappointed by sci-fi flicks but one of the rare golds in recent era I've found was Korean made "Natural City". It's one of the most beautiful films ever, super hi-tech stuff. And they made it with less than 10 million USD. I think it was 6 mil.

[dg]

Everything about it I've read or seen so far seems pretty cool, and the idea behind the story is interesting. You just never know until it's all done & in the theater, though.

[skorb]

Everything about it I've read or seen so far seems pretty cool, and the idea behind the story is interesting. You just never know until it's all done & in the theater, though.

the effects look killer/stunning, but the idea behind the story seems like just more leftist bullshit to me, "evil uncaring humans try to take over a planet inhabited by seemingly gentle alien creatures and get their just desserts"....

I could use a break from that kind of deliberate and constant "aren't we humans so terrible" nonsense.

[Newc]

Oh but it's not nonsense. Consider the fact that humans have used every technological advancement to predominantly do two things - kill and steal.

The Chinese were using gunpowder for fireworks until someone got the bright idea to shoot one of the rockets at someone else.

Man took flight in a hot air balloon, and someone decided it was the perfect thing to drop bombs from.

Ships that could sail great distance and outlast bad weather on the high seas were outfitted with cannons and other weaponry to destroy other ships.

Airplanes leaped from DaVinci's sketchbook to the Iraq war.

Computers/PDAs/Cel phones are used to hack credit card and other financial data and siphon funds from unsuspecting victims.


Well, 3 things, actually: sex. We have phones that can surf the internet like a laptop and what are they used for the most? Porn.

International space agencies are clamoring for more female astronauts so they can turn the International Space Station into a zero-G porn studio.

The Hubble telescope was not going to get funding until NASA convinced Congress that if they discovered life on other planets with it, chances are they could pick up images of alien humanoid chicks sucking alien donkey cocks.


These 3 elements alone disprove Evolution.

[Endrik]

hey look the stooges have arrived... where's the third one?

[Hellbat]

I'm looking forward to it for the 3-d aspect only. I can't watch those colored-glasses 3-d movies so I hope they use the polarized 3-d glasses like the do for the 3-d IMAX movies. I've been hooked on the 3-d IMAX films since I saw one where they dove in around the kelp beds off of California. It was an amazing feeling being able to see the sea life swim around dimensionally.

If nothing else, James Cameron puts people in seats in the theater. Right around the next 1-10 years now is the time that someone will be known as the pioneer of 3-d filmaking and it's almost ready for consumer use in television. I think you'll see a lot of big name directors and producers going the 3-d route so that they have the catalog titles on the shelf ready to go at launch time for the consumer 3-d wave.

[dg]

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. I haven't been keeping up with it much, but just in the past couple of days I've heard about some 3-D stuff in the works for home viewing. I think it was Panasonic. People who got to see a 20 minute preview of Avatar in 3-D at Comic Con a few weeks ago say it was completely mindblowing, like nothing they'd ever experienced before, and that includes some of the very same footage that looks kinda "meh" and video-gamish in the 2-D trailer. The gamble is that the movie has to make its money in theaters that show it in 3-D, because it will probably be a big letdown if seen any other way.

[Soap]

I'm alittle old school with the whole movie thing whether a cutting edge CGI movie or not, the storyline has always been the main emphasis. A very basic simple approach yet it works for me.

Meaning,
1. Something that I like or interested in thus I'm usually not overly critical to the point where I can't enjoy the movie for what it is.
Thus telling a story I'm interested in for entertainment sake.
I go to movies mostly to be entertained but there are those very rare moments when I think, that (storyline) might be possible or could happen.
2. Special effects and the implementation of CGI actually mean very little to me.
I'm not an idiot and most know as well that the use of these when done right can actually enhance and create a vibe a movie may not otherwise have.
3. I try to use discretion and limit my opinion so it doesn't discourage or sway potential viewers to agree with me or think like I do, possibly keeping them from seeing what may be to them a decent movie.
What one likes another may dislike or vice versa.

With that said, I will see the movie and will for the most part like and enjoy the movie for what it is, a sci-fi. Nothing more nothing less. The whole special effect and CGI thing is a pointless appeal to me becuase that stuff doesn't matter much to me.

I liked "The Spirit Within" and most was critical and didn't care much for it,
but I liked it. They said to me, " don't know how you liked that movie. The CGI was pathetic and distracting."
I responded, "Oooooh your one of them."

[Endrik]

I'm alittle old school with the whole movie thing whether a cutting edge CGI movie or not, the storyline has always been the main emphasis. A very basic simple approach yet it works for me.

Meaning,
1. Something that I like or interested in thus I'm usually not overly critical to the point where I can't enjoy the movie for what it is.
Thus telling a story I'm interested in for entertainment sake.
I go to movies mostly to be entertained but there are those very rare moments when I think, that (storyline) might be possible or could happen.
2. Special effects and the implementation of CGI actually mean very little to me.
I'm not an idiot and most know as well that the use of these when done right can actually enhance and create a vibe a movie may not otherwise have.
3. I try to use discretion and limit my opinion so it doesn't discourage or sway potential viewers to agree with me or think like I do, possibly keeping them from seeing what may be to them a decent movie.
What one likes another may dislike or vice versa.

With that said, I will see the movie and will for the most part like and enjoy the movie for what it is, a sci-fi. Nothing more nothing less. The whole special effect and CGI thing is a pointless appeal to me becuase that stuff doesn't matter much to me.

I liked "The Spirit Within" and most was critical and didn't care much for it,
but I liked it. They said to me, " don't know how you liked that movie. The CGI was pathetic and distracting."
I responded, "Oooooh your one of them."

I don't care about CGI much either.. hey my favorite movie was made in '58 ... but it comes down to personal criteria, what can be a crucial element for some could be a minor detail for others.

btw. someone who saw the 15 minute 3D trailer said it was "The Smurfs in 3D"