You're not alone by any means. I immediately think of so many other cartoons and scifi flicks when I see the aliens for this, which is disappointing. Actually, I think of so many other things in general when I see any aspect of this. It doesn't excite me in any way.

They aliens look too cartoony for me. I honestly think this has to do with the color and texture of the skin. As any CGI expert will tell you, what makes something look "real" is the imperfections we all have. Wrinkles, acne, scars, blemishes, birth marks, etc is what makes humanoids look real. When you lack those things, you look like a rubber manaquin.

But the rest of the movie looks great. I agree with you that it will be a great movie, and probably is ground-breaking CG-wise, but no, it is not going to revolutionize Hollywood.

Ha! Re:boot - hadn't thought of that but it pegs 'em beautifully. Maybe it's the 3D that'll make them less look CG-silly? I'm personally hoping this sinks Cameron back down to earth (him having not made a good movie since Aliens).

I'd be down with a Re:boot movie =P

I don't get the ungodly hype either. It looks OK and the plot doesn't seem to be anything special (though I could be wrong on that since we've just seen snippets).

YES, Avatar, the epic journey of a disabled man in a retarded gas mask as he is put into the bodie of an alien that looks like a elf and grovers illigitimate man baby as he explores a jungle infested with horrible looking jaguabeetles and finds that the other badly made CG creatures are not too different from himself.

So, in a nutshell, 20th Century Fox is willing to distribute THIS from Cameron, but they refused to let him re-visit the Alien franchise when he offered to do it a few years ago? WTF? Actually, I'd be much more excited about this film if it took place on the Alien homeworld and the plot was about putting a disabled Colonial Marine's consciousness inside of a cloned Alien Warrior body, but that's just me . . .

you are not alone on this..
i really thought that its gonna be more focused on the first contact of the human race with aliens, but instead in the trailer they just show us the same old battle with giant alien-lions and hundreds of aircraft and machineguns...
the cgi dissapoint me, but i gonna know for sure when i see more extensive footage of an alien, maybe in a conversation or showing emotions, maybe theres the photorealism..

anyway...not revolutionary AT ALL

Why is it whenever a trailer description says "a world beyond your imagination," the movie is full of "saw THAT coming!" moments?

Yeah, I don't get it either. Why do the aliens look like characters from WoW? And maybe it will look amazing in 3D, but the CG doesn't look all that earth shattering to me. Looks like a fairly good movie otherwise though.

What? The military is going to try to invade peaceful, primative aliens? Now there's an original movie concept! Yawn...

Poor Jimmy C. will always be known as "The Director of Titanic", tho he brought that upon himself.

I'm torn here. As she said.

OK. The name alone sounds queer to me. The CGI animation? Looks like the same stuff we see on X-Box 360 and PS3 games. And in all honesty, I have seen great CGI in movies already like Jurassic Park, LOTR, Final Fantasy Spirits Within, and the CGI animated Resident Evil. So what new technology Cameron was waiting for on this, I have no idea. But I have to admit, the previews do look cool. It's like Halo meets World of Warcraft. I would definitely go see this.

Speaking of which, since this movie is supposed to be so high tech, World of Warcraft should look awesome by the time it is made.

I don't get the full-on haters. It might not be your cup of tea, but I don't think there's a firm argument against it.

Honestly, I think it looks cool, but I can see how the hype is killing the appeal it would have garnered had it just been promoted normally.

You are too jaded. It looks awesome. I think you're selling the quality of that CG on such an epic scale too short.

It looks like a lot of JRPGs I've played. But I think I might check it out.

BTW - floating land masses? Didn't the Japanese do this already in PS1 games? I know TSR already covered floating land masses in Dragonlance. That is so not original.

Still, I'm not a hater of this movie. I can get past the blue Thundercat wannabes looking kinda cartoony. But the story looks pretty cool.

BTW - I'm an idiot here and will ask the question since I really don't know the answer to it. Is this ENTIRE movie done in CGI? If so, I will admit that the humans look incredibly real.

i have to agree with TM, it looks very rich and detailed to me. To have so much interaction with those admittedly goofy disney-esque aliens and their world/space just looks really awesome to me.

I agree that it is notlooking like some groundbreaking cinema thing, but the trailer def. got me excited.

This movie looks kind of fun. I saw dragons fighting hover ships, so, it has that going for it.

Though, this flick looks so CG heavy, whats the point of having real actors at all?

Also, do those blue alien dudes look like Nightcrawler to anyone else?

The CGI looked fine to me. Certainly not "Re:Boot" level (when was the last time you watched that show? Or were you going for hyperbole there?).

I've been seeing this a lot on the internet lately, this distain for anything computer rendered. Either people say it is "bad CGI" (which begs the question, what do they consider *good* CGI) or they pine for the days of pratical special effects (and conveniently forget how awful those can look, too). Personally I prefer a mix of the two.

Not that I'm saying there isn't bad CGI -- some of the stuff I saw in the GI Joe trailers looked very bad. But Avatar looks just fine to me. I'll be going to see it, and I generally dislike 3-D.

Chief Supreme said:
Also, do those blue alien dudes look like Nightcrawler to anyone else?

So you're saying that Mystique has more than just one kid? LOL!!

*sigh* I'm inclined to be likewise somewhat nonplussed. first off, the CG look just like anything that was in the Star Wars prequels, which were, what? ten years ago?

But what really gets me is the plot. Is this really going to be some sort of morality tale about primitives defending their Ancient Ways from a modern, militant - and apparently American - colonizing force?

Blank, you said it. That's what comes to my mind, too. All we need is that goddamn fairy from Fern Gully and we're set.

You're definitely not alone on this. The CG on the aliens looks goofy as hell. I wan't thinking of Re:boot though when I watched it. I was remembering a different 90's kids cartoon which starred a blue skinned dude. It was called Freakazoid! That's who the aliens in this film remind me of.

The space soldier stuff looks cool though (like Starship Troopers but better), and I'm sure the battles will be sweet and all. This is just a total personal thing though, I hate it in Sci-fi when one tech based race (usually humans) goes up against a nature and bio weapon based race. Fighter jets vs. pterodactyls does nothing for me at all. I'd much rather see a tech vs. tech battle, like the Death Star battles from the good Star Wars trilogy.

Agreed. The aliens look terribly under-textured. I dunno, it looks kinda boring actually. I'll wait for the D9 sequel, but thanks for trying Cameron!

one should figure that this is the first trailer and hopefully when the next one hits some inprovements will show why Avatar should be given a chance since the first trailer for films does not always show the final product

But what really gets me is the plot. Is this really going to be some sort of morality tale about primitives defending their Ancient Ways from a modern, militant - and apparently American - colonizing force?

Blank, you said it. That's what comes to my mind, too. All we need is that goddamn fairy from Fern Gully and we're set.

Agreed. I'm really getting tired of that same premise getting hauled out over and over again. Could we not, for once, have just a straight-up, no-hippie-aliens-or-other-crap-getting-in-the-way sci-fi war movie? Is that too much to ask for? COME ON!!

Putting the tickets for the preview online got to be the lamest idea ever! They should have showed the preview at theaters for anybody that wanted to watch it.

Fuck Cameron, self indulged piece of white shit!

Re-boot was awesome. This is... ok.

This movie looks fucking horrible.

Oh boy.

I wasn't super hyped for the movie, though I was very curious. I made a comment a little while back referring to it as "Delgo with mechs" thinking that I was so darn clever. Har har. I'll be damned if it wasn't close to the truth.

How does a movie like District 9, whose budget is just a cup of water to this film's financial swimming pool, come up with far more convincing aliens? I can't believe he came out of hiatus for this. Something that looks like live actors dropped into a Pixar movie.

I think it looks good. I'd have to agree, not revolutionary, but good though.
We all need to keep in mind that this was made for 3-D on the big screen. Not 2-D on a small PC screen.
And, as been said on this site before, Cameron's true strength is in story telling and we will never fully appreciate the story through a 2 min trailer.

Well, looks all right. I wasn't blown away by the District 9 trailer, but I thought that movie was incredible. And about the aliens, I think the CG wasn't done quite as well as District 9, but that movie has the cliche insect aliens. If aliens can look like bugs in a fairly realistic sci fi movie then why can't they be blue and humanoid?

Hey, this Episode 1 re-vamp looks great. But I really just wish it was a Sectaurs movie instead. Also, the first half of this trailer is like "cool! The Abyss with elves!" and the second half looks like a CG remake of Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest. I wouldn't fuck this movie with Linda Hamilton's dick.

Those defending the movie here are just paid to post "honest comments". C'mon ppl it's time to fight back the bullshit!

People never learn. Never bet against James Cameron.

Remember Titanic? Almost bankrupted the studio? Pre-release hype made people think it would be the next Waterworld?

How about T2? pretty much the same thing; special effects look fake, no way it could live up to the original.

The fucking guy is Rasputin.

I think its already been said, possibly by me, but we've seen all of this before. Blue dude in a tank: check. Lush alien jungle with space lions and space beetles and such: check. Technologically advanced military fighting tribal nature guys: check. Transferring minds between individuals for covert operations: check. Said covert operative going native and fighting against former allies: check. This is neither mind-blowing nor revolutionary nor even impressive. Not that derivation is necessarily bad, I mean, there are only 8? stories to tell anyway (haven't read Campbell in a while), so this isn't an automatic fail or anything. Its just that this shouldn't be treated as the second golden age of hollywood.

And as for the CGI, go to gametrailers.com and search for 'Heavy Rain'. That quality of CGI is interactive and generated in realtime by $300 worth of equipment under your TV. This movie has over $200,000,000 in production, is pre-rendered, and non-interactive. Again, this doesn't make it bad, it just doesn't make it automatically good either.

The main problem looks to be the CG. It's not that it's bad, but not to the mindblowing standards that Cameron has promised us.

Just looked up the plot synopsis on IMDB to see if some of the complaints about it are valid. Looks like they are:

Avatar is set during the 22nd century on a small moon called Pandora, which orbits a gas giant, and is inhabited by the tribal Na'vi, ten foot blue humanoids that are peaceful unless attacked. Humans cannot breathe Pandoran air, so they genetically engineer human/Na'vi hybrids known as Avatars that can be controlled via a mental link. A paralyzed Marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) volunteers to exist as an Avatar on Pandora, falling in love with a Na'vi princess and becoming caught up in the conflict between her people and the human military that is consuming their world."

Ugh. I agree with the other posters who've stated such: this concept is tired as hell. I still stand by the fact that the visuals look appealing, but this is a mark against the flick in my book.

Meh. That is all.

I would have been way more interested in seeing the movie in that other trailer from a couple days ago.

"People never learn. Never bet against James Cameron."

Yeah, all great giants fall sometime. This could be his swan song in an already flooded sea full of CGI-heavy movies. He may have just over-stepped himself using technology that is already considered old two days after it is created. And this will nerve turn out to be anything remotely compared to the next LOTR. I'm not sure it will ever be deemed classic cinema.

Again, watch a PS3 or X-Box 360 HD game. I'm not impressed with the whole waiting time period of why this movie was sitting on the shelf until now.

But I can say once again that it does look exciting enough that I want to see it. Action wise, it looks great. Rehashed maybe, but I can deal with that.

I'm not really sure about movie goers though. I'm getting a sense that CGI is just getting old for some people. But what else is there?

i wasn't hyped for this movie and the trailer doesn't do a good job of convincing me why i should be.

also, is it just me or does the cg on the mech suits look horrible? compared to the mech suit in d9, these suits look like they came from some cgi cartoon show. take a look at the suit in the background when the guy wheels down the ramp. i'm certain its unfinished cgi but its not helping to sell the hype of the film

HEY EVERYBODY... SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU IGNORANT LOSERS :D

Agreed on the general dislike of the aliens. I can normally forgive trek forehead aliens due to constraints of budget or medium. But if you're going all CG anyway, make the aliens a little alien! While we don't know what aliens would look like, about the only thing we can be sure of is that they're not going to look like a closer relative to us than chimps are.

Also seconded with the annoyance of technology is evil, nature is good morality tales. Ok, this might not take that path. I hope it doesn't. But it shows some pretty good signs of it.

"If aliens can look like bugs in a fairly realistic sci fi movie then why can't they be blue and humanoid?"

They can look like bugs, they shouldn't look almost identical to a specific species of insect. In the same way, it's not that improbable for something evolving on another planet to have some mammalian traits. Convergent evolution does that occasionally on this planet. It's a stretch, but not a huge one to allow for the possibility on others. It is improbable for it to look and act almost the same as a specific genus let alone species within that class.

So where exactly is the CGI that he had to wait 10 years for, so that he could make this Opus? Is it those same effects we've seen in movies for the last ten years?

Now, if that IS all motion capture on the face animation, that's pretty damned good. But at the same time, it's nothing a real animator couldn't have done just as well (if not better).

And story? Well thus far it looks like a lot of rehashed anime's. Humans with machines run into conflict with environmentally moral high ground aliens who live in harmony with the world.

The creature concepts need some more fleshing out too. As many said, they seem under-textured. But just on design alone....they're blue elves! Whoopdee doo. Were they working off a design that Cameron drew when he was six?

Overall, it DOES look nifty, and I'll probably go see it. But I'm not sure where all the money went on this. I mean good luck trying to make back that quarter billion dollar price tag....during the Xmas season...as we're going through a recession. The only other movie I know of with a price tag this big was "Superman Returns", which had the benefit of having a 60 year old franchise behind it. And that technically bombed. Good luck Avatar. You're gonna need it.

This looks terrible. The CGI is...outdated looking, like it came from the 90's. Might have been better if it was all CGI and say it's the look...But c'mon? When are we going to realize that Cameron is not all that great?

It's going to turn into another "Poor people good, rich people bad" story. Yeah. That's original.

So a while back I said that you'll should wait for the footage, it might be awesome and stop the pre-hating. Well, dammit, I put my foot in my mouth again.

To the average movie goer who has never played a video game in their entire life, this MIGHT be something they've never seen before.

On the alien design, James, are you serious? I could drive a truck through the space between those alien eyes. Note to character designers: large space between eyes = unintelligent creature. Don't know why that's the case, but if you ever want to make a creature look stupid or less intelligent/cute because it's dumb, space out the eyes and there you go.

Did I miss it in the trailer or did I NOT see an alien with slacks on?

Wait... I HAVE seen those aliens before!
http://mws.mcallen.isd.tenet.edu/iandg/integrate/hernandez/33andalite.jpg

Ebert said a while ago that the magic is gone in film effects. When we went to see Jurassic Park we went to see dinosaurs, not special effects, the same with Terminator 2, Star Wars, etc. Nowadays even the most casual filmgoer has such a jaded "that's just CG" attitude that it's difficult to believe even someone like Cameron can bring the magic back.

Still... unimpressive? Say what you will but everything I saw on that trailer was basically flawless. I'm sorry but I've seen no game with the kind of facial deformation you see on the screaming alien at 1:34. The composition is amazing, no blurry edges, no rubbery textures. Nada. And all in bright daylight. And the design of the aliens? They look like Enki Bilal's drawings come to life. Pretty cool. I can't wait to see this in 3D.

Knock the CGI and visuals all you want. It all comes down to one thing. STORY STORY STORY!!! ...and thats what is most important to the great J.C. Come December you will all be kissing his ass once again. I've read the script...and it fucking rules!!

PAUL OUT.

I'd be impressed if it was a trailer for a Final Fantasy game. But it doesn't really excite me as a movie.

After watching it and thinking about it...

To everyone commenting about the "undertexturing", aren't the hybrids(the ones that the humans download their minds into) genetically engineered/clone grown?

In which case, there wouldn't BE any texture, since it would be brand new flesh with no scarring, etc.

@Darth Shoju

Good CGI is tastefully done CGI. That means either it's done in a way that is only used to enhance a film without distracting from it like Forrest Gump or if it is CGI heavy that it doesn't feel bloated or without substance like the Matrix (not the sequels).

Bad CGI is when the CGI is done in such a way that no matter how much you want to suspend your belief and enjoy a movie for entertainment purposes you can't help but be distracted by how "fake" everything looks or how "jerky" or "crayola-looking" everything is.

The recent G.I. Joe movie had both good and bad CGI. The earlier scenes with breaking into the PIT (except for the Storm Shadow/Baroness jet-pack escape) or even the accelerator parts seemed somewhat plausible and worked within the context of the movie and the scenes that were being conveyed. The giant underwater battle at the end of the movie was bad CGI feeling very cartoony and poorly done like Godzilla miniatures, but without the charm.

This movie came out earlier this year it was called " Battele For Terra".

Aside from the derivative plot, I think the reason this trailer fails to deliver that epic "I have to see this" feeling you get from past sci-fi films like the last Star Trek, or Aliens, or even any of the Star Wars films is the simple fact that there is an obvious lack of an evil, interesting villain. Who are we rooting against here? American marines backed by a faceless corporation that wants to take a resource from a planet? So what?! Is the movie going to be 2 1/2 hours of Gungan-like aliens fighting against a futuristic representation of our own US military? Not that I am gung ho about our corporations and our military, but I don't get amped to see them getting wiped out by alien tigers and alien elves with spears. At least in Aliens the faceless corporation was trying to weaponize some scary aliens, and at least the Aliens made you want to piss your pants. This is just silly.

Weeelll... Not the "Oh-my-freakin'-jayzus-I-believe-by-gawd-I-beeeleeeeve!"(squirt) category of ground breaking CGI that we were told it was. Funny enough, it looked better in Quicktime, and the blue alien (what the hell are they called?)effect looked more "real" when you freeze-framed it. It's just the movement I don't buy.
But, maybe we need to see the final movie to get our zippers all greased up. I'm still looking forward to it, but just wish we hadn't been hyped up -- because nothing lives up to its hype.

I'm monumentally disappointed. Instead of giving us a big glimpse at a decent story and then teasing us with a few shots of what they've advertised as ungodly CGI, they just threw a whole bunch of CGI at us and I'm underwhelmed. Thank you, Avatar. I'll just go see District 9 and forget about you until you come out.

So to sum it all up in a nutshell, and I put this question too you all... If Disney made starship troopers?

I actually thought the entire movie was going to be CG...I didn't realize there would be actual actors in it.

Dammit, If he at least did Battle Angel first it would have been less cliche. And it would have been a world I really hadn't see before (well, maybe Mad Max). But not in a few years at least. We all saw this in like every low-budget CG movie in the last five.

I'm with MynoNos....remember this is supposed to be 3d.
Of course watching this on the computer isn't great, but I'm still going to check out the trailer tomorrow when I can actually see it in 3d.

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression most of the stuff that took Cameron years to create involves the 3D stuff which could be why we aren't totally blown away.

I think the endless hype will probably make the movie disappointing to A LOT of people. I'll just be going to the theater to enjoy the movie. I think this one might be worth the 10 bucks because I doubt my TV will do the movie justice.

Well I for one think it looks just Smurphy! Can't wait to see it in theaters!

"Gareth said:

Oh boy.

I wasn't super hyped for the movie, though I was very curious. I made a comment a little while back referring to it as "Delgo with mechs" thinking that I was so darn clever. Har har. I'll be damned if it wasn't close to the truth."

My vote was for "Soldier with CGI"...

Jaded nitpicky fanboys are jaded...

I just want to say that we are all watching this in a very small screen on a computer with absolutely none of the 3D effects that will come into play with a real movie viewing experience. In addition, it's clear this is a teaser with scenes probably not finalized on a texture, bump mapping level.

I'm not saying that James Cameron should be worshipped as a savior. What I will say is that from the original Terminator, to the Abyss, Aliens, Titanic and Terminator 2, James Cameron moved special effects and moviemaking forward. Every single movie pushed genre action and special effects. He's constantly will try to take visual imagery to a different level.

Plot -- Is it hackneyed? Yes. So was Aliens, Terminator 2 and Titanic. Did you enjoy yourself and the action? I certainly did. Where in the world is the requirement that an action movie be completely original with every single trope? The criticism is that floating islands aren't original? Neither is aliens, robots, mecha, spaceships and alien worlds. Sheeesh, guess we shouldn't even try to use any of those tropes again, ever.

You know it's very funny. If every poster here was really intent on supporting original cinema, Transformers 2 would not be the bestseller it is. How many actually took the effort and plunked money down for ORIGINAL fare such as Primer, Angel and Insects or MOON? Fraction of a fraction I would say.

So, before everyone gets all indignant about how lame this new Cameron feature is based on a short teaser trailer, think of his body of work compared to so many others and maybe just maybe, think that this maybe better than you may have concluded? I for one am looking forward to a good sci-fi movie that won't talk down to me and have loads of 3D special effects and be taken away into a new action film.

It looks... decent to me? I dunno, doesn't seem like anything special, but I'm sure the backlash wouldn't be so extreme had it not been hyped up to be "teh biggest thing in cinema EVAR!" [sic] (And yes, I did see that exact quote somewhere online in regards to this movie.)

I'd probably go see it, but I'm not buying into the hype, and I agree with Rob and most of the rest of you, the aliens certainly look like something out of a 90s show.

THE PR0F3550R said:

"Good CGI is tastefully done CGI. That means either it's done in a way that is only used to enhance a film without distracting from it like Forrest Gump or if it is CGI heavy that it doesn't feel bloated or without substance like the Matrix (not the sequels).

Bad CGI is when the CGI is done in such a way that no matter how much you want to suspend your belief and enjoy a movie for entertainment purposes you can't help but be distracted by how "fake" everything looks or how "jerky" or "crayola-looking" everything is.

etc..."

I agree, and that is the same definition I've always worked with. However, I didn't feel that way about the footage I've seen in the trailer. It seems to me that a lot of people scream "Bad CGI! Fake looking! FAAAAKE!" if it is recognizable as CGI at all, regardless of the quality. Personally I have yet to see CGI effects that I couldn't recognize as such. Everytime it is used I have to suspend my disbelief, but that becomes easier when it is well-done.

But it seems to me that a lot of people love to play the internet iconoclast and decry CGI effects because they've become associated with popular movies (often bad ones, admittedly). I've seen people online complain that Gollum in LOTR looks "too fake" and it takes them out of the movie when he's onscreen. The same people often hold up practical effects as the be-all, when in all likelyhood they were the same folks who would bitch about "guys in rubber suits" back in the day.

Of course, there are those who are genuinely dissapointed by what they see, and aren't trying to be an iconoclast. Everyone obviously has a right to their opinion, but it's gotta be hard being that tough to impress.

How about everyone calm the fuck down. Forget the hype. The real problem here is that so many people get caught up in the hype and that's what it all becomes; that's what they react to, not the film anymore. This whole thread is not even really about the trailer itself, but about the hype surrounding the movie. Granted, a lot of the hype is generated by the studio, and one could perhaps argue it brings it upon itself.

But, still, that's marketing. I don't give a fuck about what the marketers say about any film, including this one. Studios try to create buzz as part of their jobs, and that has nothing to do, really, with the actual quality of the film. To me, the movie looks cool, not the greatest thing ever, not revolutionary, not my-eyes-will-bleed-like-i'm-seeing-god. How great and/or cool the movie is cannot be based on a fucking trailer anyway. You have to see it first. How about everyone quit psyching himself up or down and wait to see the film before pronouncing judgment and quit caring about the hype so much.

This movie isn't even out yet, and we just getting the first glimpses of it. And people are already whining and hating on it like it was the devil. YOu guys are as bad the over-hypers and part of the problem with kind of stuff.

Personally, I think Cameron has a good track record with movies and this is obviously a passionate project for him, so I am excited about seeing it. However, my baseline for judgment is not going to be "will it change cinema forever". It's just a movie, after all. I hope it's great but that won't be determined until, oh, I don't know, I SEE THE FUCKING MOVIE.

Perhaps Jim Henson should have made this while he was alive. Then it might feel like a proper fantasy instead of a "slick" CGI sci-fi. Putting these blue people in with real humans has a Roger Rabbit feel, without the comedy.

That said, Rob, how do you feel about "District 9?" I would actually really like to hear your assessment of it.

The alien designs are really derivative, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that we may get to see some true technical prowess when it hits the theaters. Transformers 2 is impressive and stands appart in the CGI field, despite the fact that it's a retarded movie with poor, convoluted design choices.

This trailer sucks for being really generic, and it's hard to imagine a sci-fi flick making up for a 300,000 gazillion budget. Still, I'm almost willing to travel to another country to see it in IMAX, because 3D movies (at least 'till now) are all dubbed, and that's plain fucking ridiculous. I want to believe, goddamit.

It's won't be the second coming of Christ, but I'll see it nonetheless.

I'm sort of confounded by the "tired" concept remarks...

So you want a straight up sci-fi action flick, "with no hippies," as one person asked for. Well, didn't we already have Transformers, Terminator, and GI Joe this summer, not to mention Dragonball.

D9 was amazing, right? That was incredibly original, right? I mean, a movie about how a dullard comes to learn that an oppressed group deserves better treatment that they've been getting, then ends up fighting for their sake have never been told... oh wait, that's just an Apartheid parable, the same arguments were made in Huck Finn, and racial uneasiness is an underlying theme in Othello.

So Avatar has star-crossed lovers, nativism, and an inversion of the basic invading army trope. To ask for the opposite, lovers who are meant to be together, the us group is amazing, "and no seriously, we're going to go in there and f' 'em up because the army is awesome" militarism well... that's Transformers 2. We definitely need more of those.

It seems like most people here are wallowing in the "I'm cool because I hate something that I expect the majority of people will like it" mentality. Personally, I do find the CG astounding. There's a scene where Sam Worthington's character flexes his toes, and I saw a very effective rendering of how musculature affects skin. When I see clearer shots I'm sure there will be much more of the same. If you recall, the staff on "The Incredibles" in interviews discussed how extraordinarily difficult it is to render human facial features for the very reason that what you see on the surface comes from the interactions of several layers of tissue. In their case, they went for an extreme caricature to reduce the difficulty. The Na'vi are far closer in proportion and form to something that's actually alive, and from that small snippet it's obvious the amount of work put into realizing the creatures.

all wild speculation aside though, I can always use inductive reasoning.

James Cameron made:
Terminator, which I love
Aliens, Which is one of may favorite movies of all time
The Abyss, which was cool but I haven't watched recently
Terminator 2, which I also love
True Lies, which was fun, but not something I'd clamor to see
Titanic, whose concept didn't appeal to me at the time it came out, but definitely appealed to people I know

So, from the short list of 6 James Cameron movies

I loved 3, enjoyed 2, and wasn't interested in the concept of 1.

So, then, James Cameron consistently makes movies I enjoy, in many cases makes movies I love, and once strayed into territory I didn't feel like checking out, although that by no means makes Titanic a bad movie.

The logical conclusion is that I can safely bet that I will at least enjoy Avatar. Although, if you hated all of his movies listed above, by all means don't come to see Avatar. I hated all of the Michael Bay movies I saw, decided to give Transformers a chance, was meh, and didn't bother to go to Transformers 2. Why give the guy cash when you obviously hate what he does.

Everybody save your comments and when December hits, talk with your wallets. If you don't like it, don't go to the theater, don't buy the toys, the posters, the video game spinoffs, the t-shirts - anything.

This will really tell Mr. Cameron and Fox what you think of his grand design.

But I'll bet all you pisser and moaners go see it. I know I'll be watching for the DVD rental. Or the online stream.

BTW - is it any surprise that Sigourney Weaver is in this flick?

@ L.S. Ramos-What about Piranha 2: The Flying Killers? What did you feel about that one?

For me, James Cameron only made 2 good movies: Aliens and Terminator. The rest is average, at best, and I have no desire whatsoever to see Avatar.

@Zdenko

Haven't seen it, I'll rent it tonight, it sounds hilarious.

"Piranha 2: The Flying Killers"

GAWD! B-MOVIE written all over that. It sucked moose cock horribly. The only thing missing from that movie was Bruce Campbell. But if Bruce had been in it, that movie would have kicked ass!!!

I think it looks quite beautiful, myself. Though I did just have to hunt down a French copy of the trailer. Is there a reason they're pulling it everywhere :\?

To elaborate on my previous comment, I make no claims to have seen everything he's ever worked on, but through the use of reason I am able to conclude that he consistently entertains me more than he doesn't.

There is a lot of crying about how bad a movie is or will be, and then there a lot of crying about "how can you say that if you haven't seen it"

Then movies like Transformers 2 and GI Joe make a ridiculous amount of money, in no small part because the people who are grousing still run out to see it the opening weekend.

Studios get ticket money on a sliding scale, the first two weekends they get most of the actual price of the ticket, the third weekend and after, they get substantially less. It follows that they build hype machines to maximize on profits. It's better to have a movie that makes most of its money the first weekend than it is to have a movie that doesn't attract a lot of people, but attracts them consistently.

If you absolutely MUST see a movie that you know will be awful, at least wait until the third week of release. That way you can see the movie and still vote with your wallet. I'm just speaking from personal experience, but I haven't watched Watchmen, Transformers, or GI Joe. I did watch Terminator for free.

If you think a movie is going to be crappy, but run out to see it because it's an event movie and you just have to be in on it, well for all the jawing off, it's not accomplishing anything.

Gah, got sidetracked.

You can figure out if you will like a movie or not by looking at the track record of the people involved and making an informed decision, rather than just going off on a crying fit.

@ L.S. Ramos:

That was my point.

@ttrnet

I think the main thing that people are upset about is that they've been promising a movie like none we've ever seen before, and now that we're seeing stuff from it, that's not at all true.

I agree that un-original (aka Franchise) movies are doing undeservedly well at this point in time. And I'm all for original plots (going to see District 9 tonight in fact, and even that's not particularly original). It's just that before anything came out for this movie, they were claiming it would break all kinds of new ground. Nothing here shows that and it's a huge disappointment. That doesn't mean the movie will be utter crap. It just means that they've been building it up to be something it isn't.

If someone had come up to you and said that they had a new kind of fruit you'd never heard of before; That it had flavors you've never known and would change the way you looked at food, you'd be expecting something unbelievable. It's hard to even fathom something like that, so the mystery and wonder is infinite. Then that person hands you a purple apple, which is an apple in every way except it's a color you hadn't seen before. That'd be a helluva let down. Sure it's something new, but it's not exactly life changing.

That's how I feel about this. I still like apples. I'm just trying to figure out why they thought this was going to be the super-uber-ultra-fantastic turning point in the history of cinema. It just looks like any other movie...

@ Darkmagician66699

Yeah, I got pretty thoroughly sidetracked. My point is that you can look at elements of a film and use reason to figure out if you really want to see a movie or not, regardless of hype. And like you said, if you don't actually want to see it, then don't go.

D.H. Writer said:
I'm just trying to figure out why they thought this was going to be the super-uber-ultra-fantastic turning point in the history of cinema. It just looks like any other movie...

Plain and simply, it's just the shear fact that Cameron's name is attached to this. For the record, I really have never been a fan of Cameron's work. Aliens? OK. Terminator? S'all right. Titanic? Well, as far as I'm concerned, that movie sucked as much as the iceberg that hit the real Titanic. The Abyss? Eh.

I can take or leave Mr. Cameron. I am much more impressed with someone like Peter Jackson. LOTR will remain in my memorable movie experiences long after any of Cameron's movies do/did.

"Boredlizzie said:

That said, Rob, how do you feel about "District 9?" I would actually really like to hear your assessment of it."

I've been wondering why there isn't a thread about it, that movie is full of all kinds of win.

IRT the Avatar movie like it has been said earlier at this point, the movie could be the most awesome thing ever made win 12 Oscars and cause genuine orgasms while you watch it; and it still wouldn't live up to the hype (including that put out by Cameron himself).

And since we're talking being derivative (at this point in cinema history what movie isn't?) am I the only one who thought of Anne McCaffery's "The X who Y" series, where paraplegic genius kids are inserted into computer mainframes and run ships or space stations? (but not biological robots, that does seem original as far as I can remember)

Wasn't this supposed to be photrealistic CGI? Its looks very cartoonish.
Not pleased. No, not pleased at all.

Suck it, James Cameron. Titanic was nothing more than melodramatic tripe. Billy Zane should've passed on it and pressured Paramount to make The Phantom II. So you can suck it too, Billy Zane. Just suck it.

BTW, why was the trailer pulled? It's about time they show us footage... and then they just take it away?! C'mon it'll be out in a few months...

I don't understand what's the big deal with this movie, where's all that CGI Sci-Fi revolution that Cameron says, it's just another cgi, live actors film, like I Robot or transformers, it's nothing new, nothing that we already saw, i expect something like the first time i saw jurasic park, that's mind blowing cgi, not this, this goofy cartoonish characters, this teaser trailer makes me lose all the expectation, now I'll focus my atention in TRON 2 looks much more better, if Cameron want to suprise me with a CGI live person movie just bring the action, the f/x and the CGI character quality of Final Fantasy: Advent Children

@ maachubo:

WHOA! Don't go throwing in my mouth. I didn't say they yanked it because of that. I am just reading a lot of reports from reputable news agencies that this thing is on average geting about 70% reaction that this trailer just isn't worth it's overhyped salt. My guess is they got today's gut reaction, and will get tomorrows reaction at select cities and make their judgments on what people think from there. They have until December, so they make some adjustments. What I don't know. But it's possible we aren't seeing the whole thing cleaned up and finalized.

@ maachubo:

HA HA, Good one you jerk. You got me. LOL!

District 9 definitely looks pretty good.

Watch when the guy falls out of the helecopter towards the end of the trailer, (grabbed by an alien)...it looks like ROUGHNECKS:The Starship Troopers CGI Cartoon crap, its terrible computer animation...the eyes on the aliens look good, but seriously, thats about it...the rest looks like a damn video game cut-scene.

Not really excited. It looks more like an RPG than a movie. I think the hype is killing this movie. All of this build up and expectation is going to hurt it more than help it. The graphics were great but it's nothing that I haven't seen in FFVII or even the Beowulf movie that came out a few years ago.

The Na'vi look a little like the Nelvaanians from the Genndy Tartarkovsky animated Clone Wars.

First impressions are a bitch!
And My first impression after watching this trailer was: Deja vu!. I've seen this before!...but where??? I Know! Cameron is remaking Disney's Pocahontas by the way of Starship Troopers! (Will Celine Dion sing "Colors of the Wind" this time?) Color me alien blue & dissapointed at the first trailer!

BUT I blame the Avatar hype machine, the hyperbole used by Cameron himself, "Revolutionary Filmaking in the making", "too much to be truth/somebody checks out the egos at Fox" talkin, that in the end didn't deliver the expected "I've seen the face of God and is in James Cameron's Avatar CGI/FX" reactions.

So it goes. For all the revolution hype,nothing new it seems. The aliens desing looks unispired, like a big blue versions of the Dark Crystal's Jen & Kira going tribal, and you Rob and others hit the mark with the "it cames from the 90s" comments. The setting looks selvatic meh. I agree with Darth Davius that the f/x and the CGI character quality of Final Fantasy: Advent Children was more jawdroping beautiful and awe inspiring. The rest is like any other Hollywood action film in the last decade. Will Stephen Lang play the gung ho/bigoted soldier who hates those "damn, dirty blue Lizards/man things?

The only thing that made my heart pound was seeing the great Sigouney Weaver onscreen! How I Love that woman, beeing a fan of hers for decades now. And she still beautiful!

But I'm still going to see it, I'm slightly less hyped about it, but is the first James Cameron movie in years, that counts for me a lot. He is great filmaker after all. I know I`m going to be entertain at least!
No revolution here, at least for the first trailer.

Greetings from Chile.

besides my other coment, this movie fuck up the real avatar movie, and not worth it

@L.S. Ramos:

"[on District 9] oh wait, that's just an Apartheid parable, the same arguments were made in Huck Finn, and racial uneasiness is an underlying theme in Othello."

District 9 is original because it inverts the noble savage cliche. For one, the oppressors are the natives, not the immigrants. And for another, the behavior of the prawns is consistent with the worst caricatures of native peoples made by European colonialists. They are (with the exception of Christopher) impulsive, violent, and stupid. Also, one must wonder what exactly they planned on doing with all those weapons before their commanding caste died off.

So, yes, I would submit that the space hippie/noble savage cliche is only employed in earnest by the very worst science fiction. That being said, Avatar's trailer might be intentionally misleading.

Ignoring the hype, this looks like a fun way to spend a couple of hours. Especially if it's 3D. But it all hangs on the story. Not keen on the "falling in love with the local hottie" cliche. Done badly, this type of plot point can cause a movie to grind to a halt.

That said, based on this trailer alone, I'm going to see it.

Movement still looks unnatural as hell. Not too exited about this one.

Delgo meets Terra, meh.

I saw District 9, and I thought it was original, too. Orginal is a relative term, and I don't think in this context, it means unique or radically new. Given all the novels, films, songs, games and other media in the world, what can be REALLY be called unique or completely new? From relative points of view, nothing is completely singular in theme or structure. Original in this case means different, it means that it doesn't adhere to the norms and conventions that everyone else seems to be following at this moment in time. In this sense, District 9 is original.

District 9 is different in that it presents a very socio-political story, which alone sets it far apart from most other Hollywood films. It's not just the obvious apartheid analogy, either. In a larger sense, it could speak about the Palestinians, American ghettos, all sorts of human scenarious. It invokes a cynical view of humankind, of corporations, of govt. callousness. The other two big Sci-fi films of this year (Star Trek and Transformers 2) have absolutely nothing to say, politically or otherwise. HOllywood always leaves out politics and cultural analysis because it might alienate some and thereby reduce box office appeal.

To make a film that is this openly political and socially biting does go againt the current grain in mainstream film-making.

To attack it as unoriginal because Mark Twain explored racial uneasiness (in 19th. century novels) and other such nonsense is too fucking absurd for words. It's all relative to context, and in this sense, District 9 is original.

Oh, and James Cameron kicks ass. Don't like his films as a matter of taste (as in, say the melodrama in Titanic), but don't tell me they are not well-made films. The man is a talented director, an auteur of big, epic films. His film film Piranha 2 doesn't change a damn thing, either.

i definitely think the cg is better than the final fantasy movie and yes the faces look a little goofy on the creatures but it might be good. the only thing that bugs me is that the humans are obviously going to go to war against these creatures for no good reason and movies that have humans against aliens where the humans are the "bad guys" piss me off. Okay, okay we get it, humans are destuctive and horrible animals and we should all learn to hold hands and sing koom-by-ya before wiping out an entire civilization! I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt cause its JC but if it turns into what i think its going to turn into, then i will bash it forever because it's an overused, overestimated plot devise that needs to die off.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/shyamalans-avatar-trailer-teases-airbender-nation/

The REAL REAL REAL Actual Avatar Trailer...I'm thinking I gonna skip Starship Troopers: The Last Rainforest, and go see the original 'Avatar.'Because somehow, watching 2 hours of a kid playing with a stick seems more interesting than another PIXAR animated ripoff of dozens of other movies I have already wasted my time watching...

A lot of you are failing to realize that the humans in the beginning of the trailer are not live actors but cgi.
they look pretty real.
anyway. It looks decent. not groundbreaking.
and the aliens look sketch

My favorite part is when the Navi try to slap Rocky Dennis from mask right after telling Cher "you're just out gettin loaded and laid."

Are the aliens disappointing or what!?!? The humans being in the movie up the ante for the CGI portions of the film and the blue people just don't stack up. Just makes you notice the less impressive CGI parts. I will still watch it. I don't doubt the movie will be good, but it's not stacking up to the hype. Maybe I'll change my story once I watch it at Imax.

Neat=lame.

Neat=7 year olds may enjoy the blue elfs, the flying dragons, the pocahontas girl, the dinasours and the tarzan-fights-lions guys.

For the rest of us, neat=pass.

You know what? This is barely related....

But I get SO FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of people bashing The Spirits Within.

Why? Because the movie was not that bad. Not that bad AT ALL. Actually it was quite enjoyable and a good film (albiet not a great one) in most every regard?

Why do fantards hate it so much? Oh, because it had nothing to do with the games. That reason still makes me laugh.

NO FINAL FUCKING FANTASY GAME EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

No numbered entries in the series were EVER related, aside from pathetic costmetic differences as a few yellow birds, a few thins named Ifrit or Shiva in it, and a flying ship or two.

GUESS WHAT. THAT'S IT. And if people really want to continually harp on Spirits Within just because it didn't have a fucking bird, or a red fire demon haphazardly thrown in it, then I weep for the combined common sense of FF fantards, BECAUSE THAT IS STUPID TO BITCH ABOUT.

That's the ONLY criticism anyone EVER had about that movie. THE ONLY FUCKING DECENT CRITISISM. The rest had an interesting story, good direction, made for a good (not great, but fair) movie, and was just about as decent as nearly any of the games, anyway, barring maybe 6.

BUT PEOPLE BITCH ABOUT IT LIKE RETARDS. Why? Because it has about as much to do with the franchise as the franchise has to do with itself? If you think that, YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD.

Spirits Within was a damn good movie then, and a damn good movie now.

And lo and behond everytime I point out the TRUTH about this, people always say "Oh but it was so bad that it bankrupted Square pictures hahah so there"

No. Dumbshit retarded fanboys, and over-expectant douchebags with a complete lack of reasoning skills, who missed out on a damn good film or simply watched it due to it's "status" and bitched about absoutely nothin that was no fault of the film itself, put Square Pictures out of business.

Because they were typical fanboys who whined about a good film, and passed it over.

And for what? Advent Children. Which was 5000 times worse of a film in every single conceivable regard, and was a glorified fanwanking piece of incoherent shit from beginning to end.

And they preferred that... shit... over Spirits Within, even though Spirits Within was clearly the superior film of the two.

Proving my case, once and for all time that FF fanboys are stupid, and everyone who puts Spirits Within down is stupid, and were unable to appreciate a good movie when it hits them in the face.

I get so irritated when people put down a good film for bullshit, idiotic reasons that pretty much amount to the sound of a room full of whiny fanboys, loudly masturbating while crying at the same time.

The Scenery just seems like something out of Halo 3 to me. Seems watchable though.

Everything sums up to this: They said it was going to be revolutionary. It is not.

period.

Fine. I'm the only one who's gonna say it.

I can't see any non-furry getting into this. Aliens or not, this film looks like a furry's wet dream. I seriously cringed/shuddered through the preview (before Basterds) and at some parts - like the braided-hair-thing about to cry and the near-kiss, thought I was actually going to be somewhat physically ill.

Watch how many fox/cat ears are obstructing your view when you go see it in the theater. I guarantee it.

Wow....now that's a rant, Karma.

"sound of a room full of whiny fanboys, loudly masturbating while crying at the same time." Yeah, but what I want to know is...do the whiny fanboys still make a sound if there's no-one there to listen.

But seriously, I'm with you. I really liked The Spirits Within. I would have liked the story to be stronger, but definitely a decent flick. With great animation.

I literally can't understand how flippant people are about this trailer. The scenery looks beautiful and it was created from nothing. Creating that from scratch is a bloody good achievement. People talking about the alien's skin being too perfect...they're fucking aliens, how could you possibly know what they're supposed to look like.

Hundreds of people poured months of creativity into this thing, and for people to turn round and say something like "meh, looks shit, i've seen better CGI ten years ago, its just a crap rip off of WOW and that film that had a rainforest in it. I've seen a rainforest Cameron, stop being so unoriginal"

Come on, give the guy a break, at least see the bloody film