Avatards Avatared
Avatar Day went pretty well for me.
The footage was not, in fact, the same as Comic-Con or as long as Comic-Con. There was a lot less of the opening “live-action set-up,” fewer sequences shown, and notably, less hanging around in the colorful forest.
On the other hand, the images in IMAX 3D were much, much more impressive. It reminded me, given the trailer this week, of hearing a sound mix in process on a CD… and then hearing it on the studio speakers. Now we have a better idea of what the filmmakers are experiencing and why they are so excited.
Whoever designed the package for Avatar Day is very, very, very smart. It was enough to give it to you without being enough to start picking at the material, which is obviously going to be incomplete in this round of 12, 13 minutes of footage.
Watching it in IMAX, I went from like to love on some of it. The action is not only relentless, but light years beyond similar attempts at action in previous CG films. Sorry if you want to think of it as a video game. The argument wasn’t strong after the Comic-Con footage. In this format, it’s just silly.
The sequence in which Jake acquires his “flying horse” was also much, much better seen in this format.
Another notable thing that I don’t really know was evident or not at Comic-Con, was Neytiri’s nakedness. The same is basically true of Jake. Both wear loincloths of some kind, but in this format, we could see that Neytiri is not thinking much about exposing her long, athletic body – small, athletic, clearly accentuated breasts included – to her fellow Navi. The point is not that she is naked, but that there is a layer of natural sensuality in this work – think Kate on the couch in Titanic – that is clearly going to be included.
My basic takes remains the same… we need to see the movie to see if we can see past the CG of it all. But this experience took me one step closer to that. And assuming I will not be alone in that, it seems like a win for Cameron and Fox to me.
ADD: 10:20p – I completely forgot to note… part of the presentation at Universal Citywalk was an offer to sell attendees at Avatar Day tickets to the very first Avatar IMAX screening at the theater, 12:01a at the crack of December 18. One Night Offer Only. (They also, cleverly, offered matinee priced tickets to any movie that evening at the 18 screen multiplex, as well as free popcorn with a large soda purchase.) So ticket sales for the film have officially begun! (And in an hour or two… they will be officially ended.)
Agreed. I obviously didn’t see what they showed at Comicon but what I saw here was impressive. People complaining about the visuals in the trailer are simply not seeing the way they’re supposed to. It’s a shame, but that’s the nature of this here internet.
Those night time scenes though? Truly awe inspiring.
It was definitely a win for Fox in terms of making up for the fucked up ticketing problems. Fox had senior executives at the AMC Promenade in Woodland Hills, and AMC bent over backwards with tons of staff (and a free popcorn offer) to make the experience flow very smoothly.
I don’t know if it was a win for Cameron, though, because I thought the footage shown was distressing in many ways. I don’t want to hear anyone bitch about it looking “fake” or “CG.” It’s as close to photo-real as possible with extraordinary detail and composition.
The problem is with the character and creature design which is bizarre and offputting. The Na’vi are frankly ugly. They look like monsterous anime smurfs as envisioned by H. Beam Piper.
Equally as disappointing are the various creatures seen, which are just too alien and weird to believe are real. People talk about the uncanny valley in CG realism. Well, I believe in a similar concept in creature design. The more outlandish the design, the less threatening the resulting critter. Hey, I just created a new design theory. Call it the Wrecktum Valley.
Adding to this sense of unreality (again, which is NOT the result of the impressive CG rendering) is the use of color. These creatures and landscapes are alive in bright, primary colors. They really, really popped which is very impressive considering the inherent problems with light levels in digital projection. So, the colors looked bright and vibrant. Like a cartoon. Cartoons have bright, vibrant color palettes and oddball character design. The design of this film made it look like a cartoon, not the CGI.
Lastly. The main character is an asshole. He doesn’t follow directions, he blunders into trouble, and he beats the shit out of a poor dragon who’s just minding his own business. Plus, he curses a lot for no reason. He’s a giant anime smurf with a potty mouth and a bad American accent. Not likeable.
So, definitely a mixed bag, which is NOT a reaction Cameron and Fox want coming out of this free preview. The audience at the Promenade was respectful, but hardly ecstatic. I honestly have no idea how this bad boy is going to play, but I no longer think it’s the home run I thought it was a few months ago.
“The problem is with the character and creature design which is bizarre and offputting. The Na’vi are frankly ugly. They look like monsterous anime smurfs as envisioned by H. Beam Piper. ”
Ayefirmative! I did not see the 13 minute thing today but after the trailer that is exactly what I thought. The actual landscape, terrain footage looks fantastic. It’s the actual creature design of the Na’vi that is offputting. How can that be helped in 3D?
When I log onto the sight late at night the image of the female Na’vi staring at me makes me creep out. And not in a Aliens they are meant to scare me way, but in an I do not want to physically look at this way.
I am also concerned that it will be more of the military dialogue like “Drop your socks and grab your cocks” sort of shit that Cameron figures all military people speak. After the intelligence and soulfulness of The Hurt Locker, this won’t fly with me. Loved it in Aliens 23 years ago. But this is 2009 and it does not age well.
Also…is the “you must see it in 3D” argument valid? We are the generation that saw a majority of films of our youth on full screen VHS. As one poster in another thread also said, I saw Lawrence of Arabia on a full screen VHS as a child and knew it was special. Seeing it on a big screen only made it better.
A great film (ie. great story) will play in any format. A great song will sound great on great speakers and AM radio.
You may go from like to love. But you rarely if ever go from hate to love. That’s not how it works. Many people only saw Blade Runner for the first time in the 80’s on VHS full screen but it still had the power to be a classic.
If Avatar can only hold water in IMAX 3D…what does that say for the shelf life of the film? If it can’t hold up on someones TV…it will be forgotten as I hardly think a yearly re-release is being planned.
A. Cameron points out at the top, this was all first act material. Every action movie with a love story is about an asshole who learns to care, no?
B. None of us knows how this holds up in 2-D because we haven’t even seen this meager amount IN 2D.
Look… it could go bad… but the negativity seems excessive to me.
See, I thought the Na’vi looks bad at first too (I though “oh no, it’s more Jar Jar!”) but I was surprised that once they actually got to Pandora that I totally believed it. Plus they seem to interact well with each other, which definitely helps.
“Cameron points out at the top, this was all first act material. Every action movie with a love story is about an asshole who learns to care, no?”
I’m not so sure about that, I can’t think of any. Certainly, no Cameron love story has asshole leads.
It doesn’t matter if it was first act material or not. Context isn’t important because the only impression I can get of the characters is what’s presented. They chose to present the dude as an asshole with no redeeming qualities, and that’s what I took away.
I don’t think my negativity is excessive. I have no bone to pick with this project (unlike other big recent movies *cough* Star Trek) and my respect for Cameron is boundless. I even worked with the dude very, very briefly a few years back and was amazed by his energy and vision. But I’m not a fan of what I’ve seen and I’m not afraid to state it.
Just out of curiosity, DP, did you see the footage at the 6pm show at Universal Citywalk?
I came early to grab my tix for the 7pm show and could’ve sworn I saw you head into the theater as I walked up.
re: the character of Jake. He seemed like a pretty typical gung-ho hero-to-be to me. Brash, gets into situations he shouldn’t, but since “he’s got a heart” ultimately he’ll come around to caring. And taming the flying whatever is basically just like taming a wild bronco, no? The interesting bit that I hadn’t heard anything about is that it seems there’s some sort of mental connection created between the creature and the Na’vi who rides it.
Nicol, in terms of overall creature design, I guess not much is different in 2-D than 3-D. However, in 3-D it’s astonishing how quickly you start associating the actor with their 10-ft tall creature. I mean, it wasn’t some CG creature with Sam Worthington’s voice. It was recognizably (in an odd way) Sam Worthington. Recognizably Zoe Saldana. And, even more oddly, recognizably Sigourney Weaver. A young Sigourney Weaver.
The shots in the trailer that I felt were weak — Jake’s avatar in the med lab — worked great in 3-D. And there’s some welcome little touches of humor that helped sell what is (let’s face it) a standard scene that we all expect to see: Jake getting used to his new body.
I did spot the occasional stutter of motion that was 3-D induced, but overall it was really head and shoulders above anything I’ve seen before. I even dug the corny lines that Stephen Lang said: they are very much part of a Cameron movie, for better or worse.
You know, I have not seen the Imax footage yet, but that trailer has really grown on me – I finally saw it in HD this evening, and it is DAMN impressive, I don’t care what any one says. The detail is very sharp and I found the Navi to look quite photo-realistic. The music is propulsive (probably not used in the movie, but that’s ok) and the action just looks majestic. I can see how the character designs might bug some people, but really, that was just a no-win scenario for Cameron – I loved District 9(best film of the year, by the way!), but we can’t have all aliens look dirty or gritty.
And with regards to the name-checking, if the director of the highest grossing film over the past three decades does not warrant name-checking then what does? Fox is taking a safe approach by doing what Universal should have done a few years back with King Kong – they should have marketed it from “the Director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.” That said, I can see this doing just about King Kong grosses if Fox can’t bring in the women.
“Look… it could go bad… but the negativity seems excessive to me.”
Fair enough. And the truth is I will definitely see this and will most likely love much of it. It will be a hit…the question is just how big. I see nothing less than 250 million although it could be like Jackson’s King Kong and be in the 6.99 bin 12 months later.
But I think the excessive negativity is a direct response to Cameron’s excessive bravado. He wants to be seen as a genius…so people are judging it as though it was the work of a genius…and for many these brief glimpses are not holding up.
Honestly, I think Cameron and Fox should take the same approach that Lucas took in selling Indy last year. Undersell it. Say many will be disappointed. Fanboys hate Indy IV but it was a massive hit and loved by millions world wide. Critics in Cannes also went easy on it because Lucas rightfully undersold it after the experience of the prequels.
Cameron should learn from this. The hard oversell is just asking for negativity.
” …if the director of the highest grossing film over the past three decades does not warrant name-checking then what does?”
But that’s small fry stuff. I would have paid big money to see a trailer that named checked “From the adventurer that found the lost tomb of Jesus Christ, comes a journey bigger than history itself.”
I’m sorry, but I would totally make out with that blue chick if she were real and didn’t kill me for even thinking it.
I saw this other story about where Poland was tonight at Universal its worth checking out. http://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2009/08/21/exclusive-video-avatar-day-universal-citywalk/
Wrong door, Poland!
Overall, I was impressed. It looks like it cost 500 million (and it might have). But it definitely made me re-adjust my expectations. Cameron should have never used the word “photoreal.”
When it came down to it, I thought the character design was the big problem. And Cameron’s never had a great color palate so I’m not surprised he kind of blew his load here. Too much. The rainbow = cartoon sometimes.
Another problem is that there are times when the characters truly are photoreal and times when they are not. It kept me off balance in scenes and I found myself paying more attention to the effects than to the scene. What he does have going in his favor is the 3D. That chase through the jungle was absolutely riveting and every time the CGI went into cartoon overload, the 3D tricked my brain into believing that everything was real and kept me engaged.
Finally, I too thought that Jake was an asshole…but only after he got his Avatar. I know why the guy in the wheelchair is like that, but when he’s blue and ripped and running through the forest you can’t help but wonder why he’s the same jerk.
Anyone know the runtime?
Oh, this is going to sound like bullshit, but there was a family of 4 in front of me at Woodland Hills — 5th in line — who thought they were going to see a preview of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Can’t wait until grandma goes to see the 9 cartoon and wonders where Daniel Day is.
I just saw this tonight and while a lot of the movie looks very impressive, the look of the blue cat aliens is going to be a pretty big hurdle for the movie to get over. I’m sure it’s possible, because Cameron’s a smart guy, but that stuck out as the movie’s silliest aspect.
“From the adventurer that found the lost tomb of Jesus Christ…”
Nicol, broken record much?
I’m going to shift slightly and ask – what would be the best way to market something like this? Is what they are doing, in fact, the best strategy?
I’ll contrast the marketing of Avatar with what I consider the best example of genre marketing in recent history – Lord of the Rings. LotR had a massive budget, but the talk was always more on the story. It had groundbreaking tech with Gollum and the (now ubiquitous) large battle scenes, but the emphasis was about how it delivered more character (in the case of Gollum) than simply “Oooh aaah” factor.
I think this is a key difference is how they treat word of mouth. I saw a quote earlier today (sorry, can’t remember which site) which referred to the people who viewed the preview as “Ambassadors” – but I don’t believe that’s as effective for the medium they chose. You can’t as effectively communicate visuals via word of mouth as you can aspects like story or character – it ends up coming across as a “It’s good, you’ll just have to trust me” message, relying on raw enthusiasm to propagate. Some of the research I’ve been doing has indicated that relying on such individual engagement can be detrimental to word of mouth; the more personal the experience the more difficult it becomes to communicate. That’s compounded if that personal experience is based on technical aspects – think of someone’s expression glazing over as a comic fan explains a hero’s powers or a Kurosawa fan detailing the narrative shifts in Rashomon. Going back to LotR, I think they picked messages that were non-technical and easier to communicate (the brand history, the story etc.), and the result was overwhelming – it was effective because the message didn’t rely on the fact they were genre films, they were GOOD films that just happened to be fantasy.
It sounds like they’ve presented an amazing package for those attending the IMAX screenings. But is this the best way to build a campaign to communicate to people who don’t follow the industry closely “this is a movie you would enjoy seeing”?
While all you fanboys pleasure yourself you’ll appreciate the fact that “Avatar” shares a lot in common with “Delgo”.
“Honestly, I think Cameron and Fox should take the same approach that Lucas took in selling Indy last year. Undersell it. Say many will be disappointed. Fanboys hate Indy IV but it was a massive hit and loved by millions world wide. Critics in Cannes also went easy on it because Lucas rightfully undersold it after the experience of the prequels.”
But Indy is a long-established brand that carries with it a huge residual goodwill from audiences. Granted, that brand had lain fallow for two decades, but this property was already firmly lodged in the popular consciousness. Avatar is something new, and with this price tag you cannot afford to undersell it. Sometimes that approach works, allowing the audience to feel that they’ve discovered a movie for themselves (i remember seeing various previews for new movies in Spring ’99, and stuff like Forces of Nature and EdTV were considered the ‘big’ releases of the season. The Matrix was barely mentioned.) As of this point, Avatar will barely be on people’s radar, except perhaps those who mistake it for The Last Airbender. By declaring ‘From the Director of Titanic!’ from the rooftops, that may be crass, but it will pique interest from casual moviegoers better than any other method.
I imagine us “fanboys” (can you be a fanboy of an original story?) pleasuring ourselves over this movie is much akin to you pleasuring yourself over your constant comments of cinemas in New Jersey and the horrors of movie marketting. Why else would you repeat the same thing over and over again unless you were getting some gratification out of it?
When the apple site wasn’t broken anymore I got to see the preview in 1080 and yes that’s a big improvement. Also, I really appreciate that it’s a very good trailer, giving you a tantalizing glimpse of the story progression without giving away the whole movie. Thank you for no fade in/out heavy bass transitions.
Not so coincidentally, probably, Aliens was on spike last night, full screen unfortunately. I’m one of those people who gets more excited about stuff on tv then rentals. AMC finally broke me down and got me to like, really like, “Any Given Sunday.” Anyway, despite being a little too long overall, once again I see Aliens is awesome. I think the fact that Cameron is an absolute top shelf action film maker somewhat obscures the fact that he is a great screenwriter: His emotional arcs are credible and engrossing. It helps to have Sigourney Weaver of course; Paul Reiser is perfect as the corporate weasel; The film has just the right amount of comic relief. And his pacing, both in the movie as a whole and within individual scenes/sequences is second to none. This all applies to T2 as well.
Damn the unfolding confrontation with the queen alien is awesome. That’s like 20 minutes of gripping film with virtually no dialogue. I almost can’t make it through that it’s so intense. You can’t tell me the progressive nuclear implosion of the terraforming station is not a high point of live action film making. The flashing lights, smoke, sound effects, soundtrack-that’s high style expressionist film making you can put next to anyone from Lang to Ridley Scott. And Cameron’s editing is right on the money and beyond reproach. He makes chumps like Michael Bay (who does have some talent despite his grotesque self-indulgence) look like little punk bitches.
It’s a little funny people are talking about Avatar’s similarities to other movies, the visual borrowing from other fantasy products, because Cameron is like the absolute greatest sequel director ever (compare Aliens and T2 with The Lost World and Crystal skull: not a good comparison for mr. Spielberg). Terminator was famously “borrowed” from Harlan Ellison. That stuff doesn’t really bother me. Cameron’s just not a film maker of spotless originality. That’s not his thing, which is fine. His thing is the very best quality film making he is capable of for the subject he has chosen, which is more important in my mind.
Anyway, setting aside all the man in a wheelchair stuff, I have every reason to believe it will be a very, very, good and entertaining movie, and quite possibly a landmark movie in film history. Like others, I’m a little put-off by the overly humanoid aliens, but I take the point that it’s kind of a no-win situation for this type of movie, and I’m talking myself into the symbolic/parable aspect of the clash of civilizations, despoiling of nature scenario the aliens are integral too.
Okay, I know I’m not key demo, though they’re going for four quadrants, but I agree…underselling is what this movie needs. For me, it has already not lived up to the hype. The trailer was eh…I know how easy it is to get excited over VFX, I wrote a series of articles on the subject for O’Reilly Media, but STORY is king…comparing this to Titanic, a somewhat corny but still lush, epic TRUE story with a handsome, young Leo and ravishing Kate Winslet…uh-huh. My 13-year-old son agrees with other posters, “looks like a cartoon.”
“Wrong door, Poland!”
I have no idea what this means.
Yes, I was at the 6p at Citywalk.
The problem I have with the content from Citywalk is that it claims to be everyone’s opinion when it is not… not even close. Maybe the reporting of the response is accurate. Maybe it’s not. But while I am interested in every individual opinion, this instant “this is what everyone thinks” schtick is, by its nature, inaccurate and can be very unfair, either pro or con.
And this whole thing about overselling/underselling… it has almost nothing to do with what the studio does. Jim Cameron has made one appearance, at Comic-Con, showed a good amount of footage there, arranged this event, and has now released a trailer. Where does the “he thinks he’s God” thing come from? Us. Not him. He may think it, but he’s not out there selling it.
Really, how much more can you undersell a movie than Fox has? Not do last night’s event. But aside from that? A first glimpse trailer four months from release?
This happened with Dreamgirls too. It’s as though doing anything out of the norm is pointed at as OVERSELLING! So the only right option is doing exactly the same things everyone else does?
As far as the Rings comparison, the two situations are very, very different. One is a legendary piece of literature read by people of all ages for decades. The other is an original.
And keep in mind, Rings almost didn’t get made at all. They had a very hard time convincing the licensing people to do deals. The world of money did not believe in this project.
Avatar comes to the table with the weight of being Cameron’s first film after Titanic… the push of 3D, which he really lit a fire under a few years ago… and the idea that it will be “different.” Big burdens.
As far as Kong goes… pretty much everything lands in the $6.99 bin after a year now. But I get your notion… hot for a minute… not well loved and remembered.
Thing is, while it might become the truth, right now that kind of projection is coming 100% out of your ass, unless you happen to work close to the movie and know what’s coming. And that’s what’s exciting and crazy about this Avatar ride. People are firming up their feelings long before anyone has seen the whole movie. And like I said somewhere else in the last couple of days… hard to change minds.
“Wrong door, Poland” means you pulled a “W” (when he tried to escape his press conference in China and pulled on the wrong (& locked) exit doors)…the CityWalk video shows that you pulled on the wrong door when trying to enter the theater on your first try.
P.S. Are the guys at Hollywood Outbreak trying to stalk you? They show you for 20 seconds entering the theater and then they show you exiting the theater and the camera pans away & the video cuts out.
I’ve actually seen DELGO…trust me, this is not that.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the Delgo people are behind this comparison just to get a few more looks. Seek out the actual trailer to Delgo to get a sense of just how ugly its animation is, versus a few out-of-context stills. Then bear in mind it starred Freddie Prinze Jr and Chris Kattan as the main hero and sidekick.
“Really, how much more can you undersell a movie than Fox has? Not do last night’s event. But aside from that? A first glimpse trailer four months from release?
This happened with Dreamgirls too. It’s as though doing anything out of the norm is pointed at as OVERSELLING! So the only right option is doing exactly the same things everyone else does?”
THANK YOU.
I don’t understand some people sometimes. It’s as if they don’t think studios should actually be trying to sell their movies. And, as you say, if they do anything out of the norm then they’re being arrogant or something stupid like that.
Dave,
You actually do not think Cameron and FOX have sold this as something akin to the biggest film ever made? I have never in my life seen a film promoted as “Title of Movie Day” where you get on line to get tickets just to a 15 minute preview.
Phantom Menace before Meet Joe Black is not the same. You still got to see a movie with it.
And nobody said James Cameron said he is God. I said James Cameron is the man who said he found the tomb of Jesus Christ (who many believe is God). If that does not betray an extreme arrogance on the man’s part (or extreme flakiness or both) I really do not know what behaviour could be called arrogant.
As for saying any negative reactions are coming out of our ass…no…it is coming out of what we saw. Cameron may have only made one appearance at comicon…but he has given many interviews and approved of how the film is being sold and situated from day one. That’s what Cameron does.
Fact: The trailer got a bigger negative reaction, mostly due to the look of the Na’vi, than they probably expected. Perhaps the film will be great. Perhaps not. But through their actions and how they are positioning Avatar, Cameron and Fox are treating this film as something massive in a way I have not seen before. Good on them. Nothing wrong with that. But they (and the films supporters) should not get upset when people respond in kind. Much of the trailer looked great. Na’vi however did not impress.
Why is it ok to see a trailer of Avatar and say it looks great but all hell breaks loose from the defenders when some of us are underwhelmed.
I am a Cameron fan. The man is partially the reason I persued the biz. But I do resent the constant meme from the Avatar supporters that it must be seen in 3-D to be commented on properly. I saw Raiders, Empire, Blade Runner, Superman II, Aliens, The Abyss, Star Trek II and many other sci-fi classics in mono theaters in a small town growing up and on full screen VHS for years after and I knew they were something special.
I say again, the brand Cameron is selling is the same brand Lucas had to sell with Indy IV. Not the Indy brand, but the Lucas brand. Cameron is not selling an unknown property. He is selling the Cameron brand. And it is a good brand. But also one filled with a bit of arrogance that is starting to rub people the wrong way.
I say he should take the Lucas approach and be humble. Tell people this is good work and he hopes they love it and nothing more. Trying to top Titanic will only make people think he failed when he probably won’t.
Wait, who exactly believes JESUS CHRIST is God? Isn’t he the “son of God”?
Besides, people did not pay to see the Avatar footage, so it’s not like they’re cheating people out of money.
Using some proprietary metrics I’ve calculated that Avatar will have the first 100 million opening day and the first 300 m. weekend, extrapolating to a global gross well above 1bn.
BOW
Also, Lucas had damn good reason to be humble. Crystal Skull was dogshit.
“But I do resent the constant meme from the Avatar supporters that it must be seen in 3-D to be commented on properly. I saw Raiders, Empire, Blade Runner, Superman II, Aliens, The Abyss, Star Trek II and many other sci-fi classics in mono theaters in a small town growing up and on full screen VHS for years after and I knew they were something special.”
have all the repetitive, indignant little passive-aggressive tanties you like, nicol, because the simple fact is, none of those productions you listed were DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY for 3-D, shot on cutting-edge 3-D camera systems, mo-capped and rendered in 3-D. in fact, ‘avatar’ is only being released in 3-D cinemas so you won’t even be able to see it in 2-D, it looks like you’ll either have to skip it or get off your high-horse and pony up for the glasses and look like a dork like everyone else (and cameron is so high on the movie’s 3-D i doubt he’ll even release it on DVD in 2-D, it’ll be the most expensive DVD in the history of the world with a pair of proper 3-D glasses attached for a retail price of like $115 or some such thing)
leah, Avatar *is* being released in standard 2-D as well. Cameron had originally hoped there’d be enough 3-D theaters, but there aren’t. Clearly he expects the 2-D version to be good enough (although the difference in aspect ratio is interesting).
I do agree, though, that the project was conceived and aimed at 3-D being the preferred viewing experience.
“Wait, who exactly believes JESUS CHRIST is God? Isn’t he the “son of God”? ”
I am not a believer, but, in fact, many believe he is both God and Son of God. It’s complicated, but St. Patrick used the shamrock to explain how a three-leaved plant represented God being in three distinct forms but ultimately the same thing.
In fact, you might say Jesus was the AVATAR for God. Christians, please correct me if I’m wrong on that analogy, based on this trailer.
oh crap, that’s news to me but duly noted, telemachos, i stand corrected. big jim must be spitting tacks. but i guess $ must be made and bills must be paid
and a special thanks for giving ‘nic’ some ammo to come back at me with a sanctimonious huff & puff! no really, thank you so much! š š (please note winks indicating conviviality)
I think if you’re going to split differences between movies you’re never going to find the perfect comparison – look at Iron Man vs. Dark Knight. Both based on comic characters, both doing mega business, but you had people attending Dark Knight who wouldn’t be caught dead at Iron Man. They were sold on entirely different premises.
I’m also not convinced that the LotR success can be put down entirely to the brand. Prior to the movies, they were known as being in the top 10 most inaccessible books by those who had read them and being in the top 10 geekiest books by those who hadn’t. It’s not surprising that studios were wary at letting money get anywhere near it (Bob Shaye, despite his failings, should get credit for letting the deal go through as easily as it did). The difficulty in selling that “legendary piece of literature” to audiences has been demonstrated by every single adaptation since the movies – the games, stage shows etc. have all disappointed. The movie stands out alone because they made a strategic decision to sell it on the merits of the performances, not on the merits of the CGI or the fact that it had been loved by geeks of all ages.
That’s where I want to make the comparison with Avatar. As it currently stands, Avatar audiences are being asked to base their ticket purchase decision on the CGI (that a minority have seen in its native 3D environment) and James Cameron’s reputation. I don’t think that’s a BAD strategy (I can think of several that are worse), but given the stakes I don’t think it’s the BEST strategy either.
um, foamy, don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a tad in judging the relative merits of the ‘avatar’ marketing campaign/strategy being only cgi-based, since the movie has only just started to be marketed like 3 days ago with one vague visual montage – not even a proper trailer -having hit the internet along with a brief one-day-only look at some 3-D footage in the cinema amounting to a ‘hey look at this trippy stuff without any story spoilers!’
what makes you think that as time wears on we won’t get some serious glimpses into character and story? i think you’re a tad premature here; revisit it in a few months once a head of steam is building and then have at it.
(and the film is a 3-D creation, that is they way it’s meant to be experienced, that is cameron’s dream, full stop. 2-D will be sub-standard)
Possibly – however, it has NOT just started to be marketed 3 days ago. Marketing doesn’t start when trailers are released, it starts the minute information about the movie is available to the public. Look at the Twilight or Last Airbender casting controversies – there are people who have been convinced not to go and see the movie YEARS in advance (although you can probably question how many of the “I wont buy a ticket!” threats are actually valid). The marketing has been going on for Avatar for a long time, and the message that’s been coming out has been “Budget, Effects, James Cameron”.
It’s entirely possible that they’re going to focus on character and story in the near future, god knows for the longest time the message for Titanic was the rapidly inflating budget. But if they’ve been sitting on their butts and not controlling the message, then someone needs to be fired. If their marketing plan wanted something apart from effects as the key message, then someone needs to be fired. At least for Titanic they had Leo and Kate coming off Oscar-winning movies to get the marketing back on track.
I’m fine with it being designed to be natively 3D, but when you’re trying to promote that message by saying “It looks like this, but better” you’re going to get quite a few people giving you “Sure, whatever” responses. The people who see the 3D previews are getting the “Show, don’t tell” version, but the millions of other people are getting “Tell, don’t show”. That’s a problem.
“The marketing has been going on for Avatar for a long time, and the message that’s been coming out has been “Budget, Effects, James Cameron”.”
well, while i appreciate that marketing a major 3-D animated feature for adults – the most ambitious cg animated film ever made not targeted specifically at the ‘kids&family’ market – is a very tricky proposition, i’m not sure it’s accurate to say “the marking has been going on for a long time and the message that’s been coming out has been BUDGET…”; the huge budget is an aspect of the film seized on by entertainment journalists looking for a story, not a ploy used as a marketing tool by the producers. if anything a huge budget is negative publicity because it puts even more pressure on the film to succeed and nobody needs that.
as for ‘cameron’ and ‘effects’, there are worse ways to start a marketing campaign for an almost entirely vis effects driven film (esp when completion will come down to the wire and rationing out trailer footage is a necessity, not just a choice)
Unfortunately James Cameron deciding to make a movie about “a love story between two aliens” doesn’t grab as many headlines as “James Cameron makes revolutionary 3D action movie about aliens”.
Totally agree that budget can be negative publicity and it’s largely been seized on by journalists. However, I think if the Avatar marketers sat on their butts and let this happened they deserve to be fired.
Going back to the LotR comparison, it would have been relatively easy for the “Neeeeeerd” message to be seized by journalists (and, to a degree, it initially was). That’s where I really admire the LotR people – they didn’t hype the CGI, the budget, Ian McKellan’s awards etc. Whenever the “nerd” story came up they just said, “Would you like to look at this instead?” and showed them materials designed to say “This has great performances”. It really was a fantastic piece of marketing – as aggressive as it was, there was never a sense that it was the producers generating the hype. It always felt like a natural reaction generated by audiences themselves in a way they could communicate to their friends, and I think the box office reflected that.
I also agree that there are worse ways to start a big marketing push than “Cameron” and “Effects”. I’m just not sold that this is the BEST way (and if postproduction completion is going to come down to the wire, that’s even more reason to try to run with another message).
I think the reality is that the film needs to work as well in 2D as well as in 3D, a good portion of your audience will see it in 2D, easily more than 50% if you include the post-theatrical marketplace. The film also needs to work as more than just a fancy effects reel, if it’s going have success outside of the AICN/Comic con type audience.
My expectations have not been significantly diminished by the first trailer. I agree that the character design of the aliens feels kind of generic, but I’ll hold my feelings on that until I see more clips of the film. My hope with the film has always been that it will be a real effort to use CG technology in the production of an adult-themed film. I think it would be a shame if the technology continues to be relegated to essential kids films, or cartoons. It can be much more than that and hopefully Avatar can live up to those expectations.
Everybody can stand up and cheer, especially jeffmcm. The banners for “Avatar” are out and Fox do resort to the phrase “From the director of ‘Titanic’.”
Now you know why the Murdoch empire want all their publications behind paywalls.