Luke Y Thompson is covering the Con for DHD with an emphasis on Hollywood:
August 21st will be “Worldwide AVATAR Day”. When 3-D Imax theaters worldwide will show 15 minutes of the movie for free, and the video game and toy line will be launched. But we saw more of the film. I’ll try to describe the barely describable. Overall, my opinion is that the 3-D is certainly impressive when it comes to minuscule details like the virtual reality computer displays that are everywhere in the lab, or the tiny things that flutter through the atmosphere. But should we really be focusing on minor details like that rather than big-picture stuff? Yes, it’s clear this Comic-Con crowd likes to nitpick stuff to death, but is barraging with minor details the answer? Fox Filmed Entertainment Group chairman Tom Rothman, in his introduction, took pains to say it’s all in the service of character and plot. But the plot is deliberately still being left a little ambiguous to tease all of us, so the jury is out. What is apparant is the film looks beautiful.
What we saw: It begins with a drill sergeant’s boots on the ground. This is Col. Miles Quarridge, played by Steven Lang. He’s warning a group of military types about the dangers of the planet they are on, Pandora. Every animal out there will try to kill them, and the native Na’vi are handy with arrows. “If there is a hell, you might wanna go there for some R&R after a tour on Pandora… As head of security, it is my job to keep you alive. I will not succeed.”
Our hero is a wheelchair-bound Sam Worthington. He listens intently.
Next scene, he is discovering the Avatars – cloned Na’vi bodies with a bit of human DNA that are controlled remotely by humans in chambers who mentally merge with the bodies. Na’vi are ten-foot tall blue feline-people, with UV-sensitive patterns on their skin. Sigourney Weaver (huge cheer from crowd when they see her) is Grace, who seems to have a past with Sam. She gets him into the chamber while sassing back to his smart remarks. Then he merges – we see this process briefly from his perspective, then get a look at his new Na’vi body waking up and wreaking a bit of havoc as he figures out his reflexes a tad quickly. The body looks both alien and a bit like Sam, but very photo-real despite being all CG.
Later scene – Avatars of Sam and Sigourney, among others, out in the alien jungle. (We will shortly notice that many of the animals on this world look like dinosaurs cross-bred with flowers). Sam sees a bunch of trees shaped like seashells – he touches one and it collapses. Having fun, he touches them all. When they all disappear, it reveals a giant rhino/hammerhead shark thing.
Weaver: “Don’t shoot! It’ll piss him off!”
Sam gets into a stand-off and it backs away, but this is an old trick – it’s actually backing away from the monster right behind Sam, a six legged panther/flower/Sammael-from-Hellboy critter. Sam asks what he should do this time, and Sigourney says, “RUN!”
At this point, I start to wonder – where is the jeopardy if these are only cloned bodies and our heroes are actually safe back in the lab? I guess Cameron will explain this at some point.
Later scene – a female Na’vi – Zoe Saldana as Princess Natiri –is about to shoot Sam with an arrow, but a floating jellyfish-type thing lands on it and she takes that as an omen. Instead she fights off a bunch of smaller predators (think dog/alligator hybrid). He thanks her; she rejects his thanks, saying this is sad. He’s like a loud baby, she says, and brought it on himself. But then a whole bunch of the jellyfish things land on Sam and she says they’re seeds of the sacred tree. They blow away like dandelion seeds.
It’s now night, and the entire forest seems to be blacklight-compatible and touch-sensitive. Stoners and trippers will love this movie forever. The palette is very vivid, especially in the next scene where Sam is being initiated into the Na’vi tribe, it seems, part of which involves walking around a cliff-side to capture a pet dragon (well, a dragon with multiple leaf/dragonfly type wings – again, looks like a bit of plant DNA in there).
Sam: “How will I know if he chooses me?”
Natiri: “He will try to kill you”
Sam: “Outstanding.”He wrestles one of the creatures, then gets it to submit by pulling its ear hair. Crazy colors in this sequence. He is told that he has to fly it right away. They go off a cliff, fly crazy, till Sam yells “Shut up and fly straight!” It does. Telepathic link and such.
That’s it for footage. Panel with James Cameron, Sigourney Weaver, Steven Lang, Zoe Saldana:
Sigourney: “This is the movie you’ve been waiting for.” Grace is trying to protect the Na’vi from the destructive forces of earth.
Lang is still in character, calls Weaver a “tree-hugger.” Implies the movie culminates in a big human versus Na’vi battle.
Of working with Cameron again, Weaver says “the moth went back to the flame. We did it all for you, because we know you’ll notice every single little thing.”
A doctor at USC spent two years developing the Na’vi language. Actors had to dehumanize. Zoe notes that even simple gestures like head nodding are too human, and must be unlearned.
Steven says of his character, “His soul was in such a state of chaos and decrepitude, and what a sad thing to be in a place like Eden and not understand or appreciate it.”
Any future Cameron projects for the Governator? “I wouldn’t rule that out, but Arnold loves a press conference as much as anyone else, so I’m gonna leave it to Arnold to announce.”
Michael Biehn cameo? No – the only role he’d have been good for is Lang’s, which is poetic justice. (Lang wanted Biehn’s role in ALIENS back when.)
What started the idea? Cameron says “I was the CEO of Digital Domain at the time We were lagging behind in 3D composition. I wanted to push the development. They said ‘Are you nuts? We can’t do this!’”
He stowed the script for four years, then came back to it after he saw Gollum in LORDS OF THE RING. Figured it could be done, and thought the war plot was timely. The action is “a spoonful of sugar,” with the medicine being the theme of how we react with nature and our fellow man.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Can’t wait to see the scifi return of Sigourney Weaver! James Cameron rules!!
“Don’t worry about the negative comments, these were the same geniuses who poo-poohed Titanic… that is before it came out of course.”
Which I hated. After it came out.
The more I hear about Avatar, the less I like it. Sounds more like Transformers and look, robots! Let’s start a franchise! than an actual film to me. Don’t see myself being wowed by this at all. Great CGI and whatnot, is it too much to ask for a good narrative and layered characters?
Geesh is incorrect, I’m slap-happy and carefree. I just don’t like the 3D movies we’re supposed to watch from now on. The motion is very stuttered and it ruins the immersive effect of the movie. Apart from every time the camera moves, it’s just fine.
Your logic is baffling. I have to make an all-time top ten grossing movie before I can complain about Avatar? I thought I could just buy a freaking movie ticket. This is going to take way longer.
My earlier suspicions have been confirmed by Cameron’s appearance at Com-Con – it’s all about how awful humans (Americans) are, specifically republican Americans, even more specifically white male republican americans who are, or who voted for, GW Bush. Can’t wait.
@jkl
I think the issue here is that they’re looking at past history and coming to a conclusion. Final Fantasy came out in 2001 with full motion capture and CGI and pretty much bombed. Two Towers with its awesome Gollum CGI came out in 2002, everyone said “Wow, that’s cool!” and then went back to business as usual. Polar Express in 2004 – “Man, they’re just creepy with dead eyes”. Beowulf in 2007 – “Looks great, now what else is on”.
These all ranged from duds (Final Fantasy) to megahits (Lord of the Rings), but none of them really changed the face of how we watch movies. They were all “That’s nice – next” reactions (in terms of their CGI and technology work).
The contrast is that Jim Cameron HAS changed the face of how we view movies in the past – probably the best example is with his light-refractive CGI work first on The Abyss and then Terminator 2. Soon EVERYONE was using that – not just because it looked cool, but because it was fairly priced too.
I think the takeaway here is that the technology has to (a) complement, rather than distract from, the content, and (b) has to be relatively affordable. Given the relative underpromotion of anything non-CGI about Avatar (a) is definitely a concern on the horizon. (b) is also a concern – how many big “Water Tank” movies have been attempted after Waterworld and Titanic? Even Pirates of the Carribean emphasised open water during production despite the problems with relative wind effects.
I’m personally am not surprised that a proportion of people are looking at the historical evidence and coming up with “Dud”. I’m still on the fence – I have yet to be convinced that the value add of CGI is worth the diminishing returns it places on the budget, and I need to know about the content before I will make any judgement calls.
@ Foamy
Cameron wanted to make this film in the 90s, but he was told it was impossible (btw does this remind you of a certain car manufacturer?). The reason it was deemed impossible was because most of the action in the film takes place on another planet and in the 90s, it was impossible to create all that this film needed for it to feel truly original and groundbreaking. Cameron did not make Avatar so that he could simply brag. He doesn’t need to do that – I am sure we can both agree on that. The only reason there even is CGI in Avatar is (credibility) because its vital.
Final Fantasy bombed because it was based on a video game. Everybody knows video games seldom make great movies and/or hits. In Beowolf the CGI was just completely unnecessary, as it was in Polar Express. Both of them were sort of experiments, I understand.
Gollum changed the face of film industry in the sense that it made Cameron adamant Avatar was possible to make.
This is what Anonymous wrote that got to me most (yes even more so than the two lines I’ve quoted below): “Cameron could have made many movies since Titanic but he got so full of himself he became paralyzed by his own greatness and this is the long-awaited ten year result.”
Isn’t (wasn’t) the whole point in making films that you tell stories you want to share with the world? Just because Cameron did not want to make ‘Bad Santa’, ‘High School Musical 3′ or ‘Transformers 2′, doesn’t mean he is full of himself. Is Terrence Malick paralyzed by his own greatness? But nobody is tearing Malick down, because he rarely makes films which make a lot of money. It all boils down to jealousy.
Anonymous: “Dumbest thing I’ve ever read. I hope it bombs.”
He hasn’t seen a minute of the footage, and is already hoping for it to bomb. Inexcusable. This guy is a real vampire. God I’d hate to be him; wishing negativity and relishing in people’s misfortunate and suffering.
The more I read about the plot, the less sense it makes. Groundbreaking tech? Sure, but that’s a one-quadrant draw. Watchmen proved that you can’t make money marketing strictly to geeks. No big stars, a convoluted story, and a dependence on a gimmick (Imax 3-D) that has a limited exposure (just how many Imax 3-D screens are there?). All credit to Cameron for taking a chance, but it sounds as if he’s going to come up snake-eyes on this one.