There's a big honking profile of aging but still argumentative as ever director James Cameron in the current New Yorker.

The big honking link.

Here's a quote from that piece:

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? It may not have been a huge hit, initially, but that's not the same as "rejected." The audiences that saw it liked it, I'm betting. One of the problems, of course, was the Hearst papers' refusal to advertise it. So it's conceivable that those audiences which relied on Hearst papers simply didn't know about it. (There must be some well-researched tome or scholarly study that documents all of this, isn't there?)

As for whether such a comparison is merited in the first place...I'm not even gonna go there. <_<

You see, I read paper magazines. I'm 51, and it's an old quirk of mine.

Sigh. here you go, Captain Picard!

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10...a_fact_goodyear

I love this bit:

I'm gonna guess those 7-ft blue guys ain't real.

Ah - that's where you're wrong!

No worries Bob: my post was the link...and I wanted to use the word "honking."

This made my day.

Thanks, Bill. We geriatrics are slow on the uptake. Heh, heh, heh.

Finally, today the REAL trailer appeared. You know, the one that's supposed to actually tell you what the story's about?

Much improved, and the audience, while quiet, looked very interested in it. The CGI doesn't look nearly as goofy, especially now that it has better context. It's looking much more like a James Cameron film.

Agreed. I'm still not completely sold on it, but that first trailer should never have been released.

Saw the trailer at SAW VI this morning. AVATAR still looks like a big CGI-cartoon to me - I kept thinking bad Disney or Ferngully, as has been mentioned by others prior. This new trailer is definitely better than that first one (although still way too long), but I ain't biting. I also see signs of desperation the way they push all of Cameron's past films one after the next. I get it when they mention one or two, but 4 or 5? That was the best part of the trailer, though! Too bad they didn't mention PIRANHA 2 as that's my fave of the bunch.

Of course, I was watching SAW VI so what the hell do I know? Amazingly, SAW VI has a very clever script with a bunch of fun twists, and the whole plot basically revolves around the health care industry. When was the last time a horror film sequel with #6 in its title had any sort of social relevance? This franchise really gets a bad rap these days and I understand the backlash against its violence, but it's a lot smarter (and gorier, of course) than most horror films today.

THE CRAZIES trailer they also showed was quite effective (except for using that "Mad World" song) and the footage looks really good with all those brown sepia tones. I think that one has some real potential, although it isn't coming out until February. John Travolta put on some poundage in another trailer - I can't remember its title - some silly action thing. Two vampire trailers - one for the TWILIGHT sequel which made me want to puke, and another one called DAYBREAKERS, I believe. I am SO sick of vampires. Seriously, has this been done to death already or not?

Oops, yes, I know this thread is supposedly about the AVATAR trailer. Sorry for the derail! AVATAR!!!!

I had to quit at IV, I'll admit, when the big twist turned out to be

(spoilersohgodnospilersgoback)

that it was happening concurrent with III. Or at least, that's what it seemed like at the time.

The NY Times has a piece on this up and they are saying the final tally on this film will end up being roughly $500 million!?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business...vatar.html?_r=1

"Global marketing expenses" are never tallied when the production budget of a movie is legitimately being discussed, so frankly the NY Times bringing that figure up seems to me that they are trying to create controversy where there is none. EVERY territory for EVERY movie released will have it's own marketing budget, and if you added up ALL of those individual marketing budgets and then lumped that in with the negative cost ANY major Hollywood movie, you're going to end up with an astronomical figure like the one the NY times is trumpeting here. The entire article just reeks of being little more than a hatchet job trying to drum up ill will. I mean, come on, Weta Digital is some "far flung" company according to them? Give me a f**king break.

Vincent

The whole article's obviously a puff piece for ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS: THE SQUEAKUEL.

Why would they call it a "Squeakuel"? I've never heard a chipmunk squeak in my entire life. Mice, yes, chipmunks, no.

Marketing research.

More AVATAR budget talk:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21496/1/...DGET/Page1.html

I thought the point of using CGI instead of miniatures and other old-school visual effects was that it was cheaper? Since CGI generally looks worse than models, stop-motion, mattes, etc. and if it's more expensive, why in the world would anyone use it? What is the benefit?

Yeah, that was the line in the early 90s - computer technology will make films cheaper. It is astounding to think something like THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK cost roughly $20 million and still looks better than films costing $250 million.

The article does mention at the end that filmmakers need to learn to do this with no budget and I think we are getting there with stuff like DISTRICT 9, which cost a measly $30 million.

Not to mess with the new national pastime (pissing all over Avatar before seeing it), but the bias CHUD.com has against the film should be noted. The site is admittedly bleeding for cash and desperate for hits. When this happens, they pick the biggest fanboy flick they can find and attack it almost daily, guaranteeing lots of hits on their site and forum. The last time they did this, it was Dark Knight. It's a pretty obvious shock-jock tactic.

While I will admit it is impressive when a filmmaker accomplishes a surprising amount on a relatively low budget, it really doesn't reflect on the quality of the film for me as a viewer if they spent half a million or half a billion.

I'd love to see an archive of articles from 1997 predicting financial gloom and doom for Titanic, with articles from the same people after that film's success (humble pie in mouth or not). Who knows, we might find some of the same people playing the same game again?

To be fair, TITANIC had a hook (love story) that drew in a huge female audience. This has a hook (blue people love story) that will probably keep them away.

My friend made me laugh when he finally saw the trailer and said, "Wow, they can fly to other planets with big machines and transfer ones mind into a genetically created alien, yet they can't help that poor dude still in a wheelchair."

Evidentally, fixing the protagonist's paralysis is a plot point of the film.

Aw, come on - the trailer's a whole 3 1/2 minutes, you can't expect people to pay attention to what's being said!

TITANIC may have made a boatload of money, but I hated it. That's what concerns me about AVATAR, not its budget. I don't know if Cameron is still capable of making films I want to see.

Yearning for flying piranhas or one of his more recent works?

You should always wait until you see something because You Never Know, and you don't want to be the schnook who scribbled all over a modern classic just because you decided the trailer sucked,

I will say that the trailer I saw reminded me an awful lot of MEN AT WAR, a movie I absolutely loathed, so that's not a good thing. Still, MEN would've been better if Dolph had been blue and flying around a big whateveritwas on planet Magicjungleplace, so who knows.

If Dolph Lundgren was in AVATAR, I'd be more excited about it. (And if Jason Statham and Megan Fox were in it, I'd be really excited! :P )