In Reply to: Avatar--- posted by patrickU on August 24, 2009 at 03:56:18:
It looks like a scifi fantasy geared toward a younger audience than his past movies like Abyss and Aliens. The trailer does not look all that impressive and was getting a sound thrashing by at least 90% of the posters on the imdb the day it was released.
This cost $300 million to produce - much of that cash to make the aliens look "photorealistic". But these animated blue cat-people look like they could have been easily portrayed by humans in makeup for a lot less. Aside from Sigourney Weaver, there are no known actors in it. This has the appearance of a vanity project by a director enamored more with the technology of the film than the story. It has the potential to be one of the biggest box office disasters of all time while having little upside potential given the huge cost. This won't get the broad demographic audience or repeat teenage girl viewers that Titanic got.
All that said, I have nothing against a well-made childish fantasy from time to time. Not every film has to take a stab at the meaning of life. If ever there were a time for good escapist entertainment, this is it. I might see it if it gets good reviews in its 2D form. No way I am going to deal with 3D glasses though. So it will have to have a good story and not just be barely watchable as a technical exercise in 3D cgi.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Agree for the most part. - Dalton 18:40:28 08/27/09 (3)
- RE: Let me know--- - patrickU 00:24:29 08/28/09 (2)
- Where we disagree: I'm willing to see it if it gets good reviews. - Dalton 16:16:58 08/28/09 (1)
- RE: Where we disagree: I'm willing to see it if it gets good reviews. - patrickU 00:58:50 08/29/09 (0)