FEATURE: More Reflections on “Avatar”

22 04 2010

With the release of “Avatar” on Blu-Ray and DVD today, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on the impact and legacy of the biggest movie of our time.

First of all, let’s go back to the movie itself.  Back in December (after seeing it at the earliest IMAX 3D showing on opening day), I gave it a solid “A.” I saw it again at the end of March, and I still stand by that rating.  Here’s some of what I said then:

”Avatar” is breathtaking moviemaking at its finest, with astonishing visuals that are designed to do more than just floor you.  They engulf you and transport you to Pandora, a land of untold beauty complete with its own indigenous people, language, and wildlife, for an exhilarating ride and fascinating experience.

“Avatar” isn’t just a movie; it is a full-scale experience that your visual cortex will never forget.  If it is the future of cinema remains yet to be seen, but it will most certainly usher in a widespread acceptance of the motion capture technology.  The movie also secures its fearless helmer a place among cinema’s greatest pioneers, and it could even reinforce his self-bestowed “king of the world” title.

“Avatar” is one of very few movies of the past decades that deserves to be called an epic.  Everything is bigger and grander than we have ever experienced before in a science-fiction or action movie.  It is a tremendously ambitious movie, and director James Cameron gives his vision every tool to succeed.  Whether you like the final product is up to you, but it’s pretty hard to deny that the movie is of epic proportions.

I think that the mere size of the movie has led to some massive exaggerations of opinions.  Normal people who didn’t absolutely love “Avatar” immediately say they hated it, and if they did love the movie, it’s their all-time favorite.  The same kind of feelings spread into awards talk too; people were either completely behind “Avatar” winning Best picture or vehemently opposed.  Very few people seem to take moderate, or even less extreme, stances.  My two cents here: it’s fine to just like “Avatar” rather than love it or loathe it.  There is not a problem with just kicking back in your theater chair and being transported; you don’t have to be wowed or disenchanted.

I do have to share the most extreme reaction to the movie that I heard of – and this is not a joke.  There is a syndrome called “Avatar Blues” that psychologists are actually studying.  Large numbers of people flocked to the Internet to discuss the depression that they felt after seeing “Avatar.”  It may not be what you think, though.

Ever since I went to see “Avatar,” I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na’vi made me want to be one of them. I can’t stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it.  I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in “Avatar. (posted by “Mike” on an Internet forum)

You might not have been so blown away by the world of “Avatar” that you felt clinically depressed, but you had to have felt something.  Even if the story wasn’t your cup of tea, it’s hard not to have been struck by how intricately the movie was put together.  When I saw it a second time, I was floored by the impeccable attention to detail and just how thorough the world of Pandora was designed.

“Avatar” also brought consciousness of 3D and IMAX to a greater multitude, many of whom had never experienced either beforehand.  The movie absolutely blew away what we thought we could experience in the two mediums, and it has single-handedly been the catalyst for much of 2010’s discussions.  Because of the smashing success of “Avatar,” every theater owner is rushing to up his 3D theater count.  Our wallets have already begun to feel the pain from these additions with the soaring price of 3D tickets.  In addition, every studio is rushing to shoot their next big movie in 3D (acceptable) or convert their already complete movie into an extra dimension (unacceptable).  James Cameron has now become the wise owl in the tree on the matter, offering cautionary words to the future of the rapidly growing 3D market:

I draw a distinct line in the sand between films where you have no choice — “Jaws,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” “Indiana Jones”, James Bond movies, “Terminator 2” — I would love to see all those films in 3-D and the only way to do that short of having a time machine, is to convert them. Now, on the other hand, if you’ve got a movie that’s coming out in seven weeks and you wake up one day with a wind bubble saying, I want to turn it into 3-D, that’s probably a bad idea. “Clash of the Titans,” even though it made some money, has set off this controversy that we’re going to piss in the soup of this growing 3-D market. If you want to charge a premium ticket price you have to give people a premium experience. So I’m against slapdash conversion. And I’m against anyone who’s making a major tentpole movie whether it’s a new Spider-Man film or a new Pirates of the Caribbean film and they want to release it in 3-D but they don’t want to take the time and the energy to shoot it in 3-D. Again, they’re charging the audience for something that they’re not delivering.

And what about all that money it made?  Simply put, “Avatar” is the highest-grossing movie ever because it was more than a movie; it was a true cinematic event.  It was a movie that returned the urgency to take the whole family to the theater, and people were willing to spend the extra money to enhance their experience.  Once everyone saw the movie, they knew that watching the DVD or Blu-Ray simply wasn’t going to thrill them in the same way.  So they went back to theater and saw it one or two times more.  How else do you explain the movie’s opening only counting for 10% percent of its total revenue?  How else do you explain the minuscule weekend attendance drops?  How else do you explain the fact that “Avatar” made more money in its second through seventh weekends than any other movie made in the same frames?  Perhaps most telling of all, how else do you explain that 124 days after its first day in release and the day it is released on video, it is STILL in the top 12 at the box office?  You can’t deny it; “Avatar” is simply a phenomenon.

And if you think I’m finished now, that was just the impact of “Avatar.”  Now moving on to the legacy…

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #268

22 04 2010

After committing 2,000 words to the impact and legacy of “Avatar,” I’m sure everyone is wondering if I already have my copy.

The answer is no, and I don’t plan to buy it.  At least not this edition.  I’m not the kind of person who will buy a DVD and then wait a while to buy a more loaded version.

James Cameron has said that the version being released today is literally just the movie.  Deleted scenes and more extras are coming later, along with 3D.  I’m expecting something to trump the three hour making-of documentary on the Criterion Collection DVD of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”

By the way, he also mentioned in the article that I linked above that he is planning a re-release sometime later this year.  I might actually go back and see it again; it will be worth the money where so many movies I see this summer won’t.





Random Factoid #252

6 04 2010

Yesterday I talked about how annoyed I can get with bad behavior at a movie, but I should probably fess up.  I’m no angel.

I’ll share one moment with you that might have angered you had you been sitting in that same theater.  It was opening night of “Inglourious Basterds,” and my friends and I had already been to “Avatar Day.”  Needless to say, we were pretty jacked up.

Quentin Tarantino built up to a phenomenal conclusion.  I’m not going to ruin it for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, but my friends and I got up during the climax and screamed, clapped, and just went crazy.  I think my theater forgave us because I heard other claps too.

But be honest – would you be angry at me?  Keep in mind the circumstances and the movie; it’s not like I’m screaming at “Precious.”





Random Factoid #251

5 04 2010

Today’s factoid inspiration comes from NPR blogger Linda Holmes’ article “The Shusher and the Shushed.”  I read the article a few weeks ago, and it was one of those perfect reads where a very intelligent writer strings together all the thoughts you have floating around in your head.  Here, she connects all my angers and frustrations about people talking at movies.

Unfortunately, out of the past three times I have shelled out the big bucks at the theater, I have had to use my voice to “shh” some very rude patrons in the theater.

Yesterday, at “How to Train Your Dragon,” there were a few whiny crying babies.  I have written many times about this being a pet peeve (Random Factoid #32, for instance), but I’m more inclined to forgive it during a kids movie than in a movie like “Funny People.”  But these kids were screaming at the screen!  I gave one forceful “shh,” but I knew it wouldn’t do much.  Eventually, I managed to drown out the kids.

But two weeks ago, when I went to see “Avatar” again, I was appalled at the talking going on in the theater.  A grown man was having a phone conversation on the row in front of me.  Correction, MULTIPLE phone conversations.  Everyone in my family gave him a “shh,” but I must have given over a dozen.  By the time you are that age, moviegoing etiquette is common sense.  You just don’t take a phone call in the middle of a movie.  Step out into the lobby at the very least.

I’m not afraid to “shh.”  If I pay $10 to see a movie, I’m going to enjoy the experience being presented to me in the theater.  Your phone call isn’t going to ruin that for me.  Phone calls don’t just interrupt a movie, like the ads say.  They interrupt me, and the movie isn’t going to stop and snap at you.  I am.

Any fellow bold souls out there willing to stand up and say that you have fought for your right to enjoy a movie?





Random Factoid #237

22 03 2010

After seeing “Avatar” yesterday for the second time in 3-D, I have come to this conclusion: it is the only 3-D movie that has not given me a headache or made my eyes hurt.

I don’t know if I have just been broken into the technology that much more or if James Cameron’s movie has really raised the standard that much.

Does anyone know?  Seriously, let me know in the comments!





FEATURE: Unadjusted vs. Adjusted Box Office

4 02 2010

I don’t know if you have heard, but there is this little movie out in theaters now called “Avatar.”  It has been breaking box office record after box office record, every day stealing the top spot from movies like “The Dark Knight” and “Titanic.”

The past two weeks have brought a tidal wave of incredibly important titles for James Cameron’s motion capture epic.  On Monday, January 25, “Avatar” became the highest grossing film in overseas markets.  The very next day, it became the highest grossing movie worldwide.  On Tuesday, February 2, the day “Avatar” was nominated for nine Academy Awards including Best Picture, it became the highest grossing movie ever at the United States box office.  (All three titles were nabbed from Cameron’s “Titanic.)

Before I delve into deeper analysis, I think some hearty congratulations are in order for James Cameron and everyone involved in bringing “Avatar” to the screen.  No matter what you thought of the movie, you have to appreciate the tremendous amount of work that went into making it.  The amount of money that it takes to pay for a movie ticket has skyrocketed to prices that have forced Americans to reconsider how often they go to theater.  As a result, watching movies on laptops, iPods, and video game consoles has soared.  “Avatar” has returned the urgency to getting full immersion in the theatrical experience, and James Cameron deserves to be raking in all the money that he is.

But does “Avatar” really deserve to be called the biggest movie of all time?  There are people who claim the system by which that claim is made is flawed.  What I want to do is introduce you to the system that the detractors swear by – the “adjusted” system – and let you decide what system you think is the best.

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #182

26 01 2010

My one literary purchase while in Argentina: a magazine called “El Amante Cine (The Cinema Lover).”

The magazine is basically designed for cinephiles, written by cinephiles.  This made it especially difficult to read, seeing as some of the pieces dealt with schools of film criticism.  I find myself struggling with these concepts in English, and trying to understand them in another language was extremely difficult.

The issue I got jumped out at me because “Avatar” graced the cover.  The issue was the yearly wrap-up edition.  Their nearly unanimous worst movie of 2009?  “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” one of my all-time favorites and five best of 2008 according to the Academy Awards.





Random Factoid #164

8 01 2010

Since I just talked about Box Office Mojo in my factoids, I thought I might share with you some interesting response I gave to polls on the site.

Q: What is your most anticipated movie of 2009?
A: “Watchmen”

Q: What will be the top-grossing December [2009] release?
A: “Sherlock Holmes”

Q: What will be the highest-grossing September [2009] release?
A: “Jennifer’s Body”

Just a sampling of my bad prognostication.  Somewhere on the site In Contention, I commented that I thought “Avatar” would not make more than $250 million domestically.





LISTFUL THINKING: Ten Under – Best of 2009

1 01 2010

It is hard to nail all the great movies of a year in ten slots.  So, in order to fully honor 2009 in movies, I have also concocted a list that would be the equivalent of my #11-20.  I call it “Ten Under.”  When you someone is ten under in golf, it’s a great thing.  So rather than focusing on the fact that these movies are not in the top 10, I want to celebrate their merit in a positive way.

Note that rather than ranking them, I will present them in alphabetical order.

“ADAM”

Tender but never maudlin, “Adam” is unparalleled in the number of “aww”s elicited.  Hugh Dancy’s affectionate performance as the titular character with Asperger’s syndrome is the crucial element to the movie’s success, and you can feel the care put into every twitch and line.  It is sure to warm your heart, if not melt it entirely.

“AVATAR”

James Cameron’s “Avatar” will be remembered not just as a movie but as a watershed in the history of cinema.  The movie’s astounding effects are enough to make you forget some of the flaws in the script, and they really do have the power to create a new world.  Cameron goes all out to make sure Pandora is not just brought to life, but also flourishes.  How quickly can he get to work on the sequel?

“THE COVE”

“The Cove” is a powerful documentary that alerts us to a crisis we need to correct – and it is completely void of Al Gore lecturing.  While systematically running down everything wrong with the slaughter of dolphins in Japan, the filmmakers show us how they verified the massacre.  This never feels like a documentary because they wisely set it up like a crime/heist film, and the excitement builds up until it breaks and we feel nothing but a fervent urge to aid their cause.

“DISTRICT 9”

Thank heavens for viral marketing because without it, I would never have seen “District 9,” which appeals and amazes on all fronts.  Smarts?  An elaborate Apartheid metaphor and undertones of racism, check.  Acting?  An incredibly physically and emotionally committed performance by South African actor Sharlto Copley, check.  Visuals?  Aliens that make James Cameron’s output look like the Smurfs putting on a production of “Cats,” check.  There is no doubt about it, “District 9” has the goods and delivers.

“DRAG ME TO HELL”

For me, “Drag Me to Hell” was the year’s biggest surprise.  I’m not usually the horror movie type, and I generally consider mixing horror and comedy about as toxic as drinking and driving.  But Sam Raimi’s movie made me reexamine my policy.  “Drag Me to Hell” is scary good, frightening and hilarious often at the same time.  Featuring electrifying action scenes and some purposefully atrocious one-liners, it’s a movie that keeps getting better the more I think about it.

“FANTASTIC MR. FOX”

Who would have thought that Wes Anderson’s humor would transfer like carbon paper to animation?  Anyone who instantly recognized that “Fantastic Mr. Fox” contained the same spirit as previous projects surely did.  It’s the same undeniable, albeit a little peculiar, fun that Anderson has sharpened with each movie.  There’s never a dull moment here, and whether it’s filled with clever wordplay or amusing animation tricks, this stop-motion joy delights at soaring levels.

“FUNNY PEOPLE”

I’ll admit to not being entirely won over by Judd Apatow’s “Funny People” at first sight.  But I think “Up in the Air” shed some light on the director’s aim with the movie.  I have concluded that it fell victim to my incredibly high-expectations after “Knocked Up” rocked my world.  “Funny People” tones down the laughs and amps up the deep thoughts.  Adam Sandler’s comedian George Simmons is absolutely miserable in his isolation, and the news that his life will end soon only makes him realize how alone he actually is.  Over the course of the movie, which never feels as long as it actually is, Simmons tries to forge a meaningful relationship with a green comic played by Seth Rogen.  It doesn’t quite have Jason Reitman’s insight, but “Funny People” is an impressive rumination on similar themes.

“I LOVE YOU, MAN”

If a bromantic comedy genre ever catches on, “I Love You, Man” will be its “The Great Train Robbery.”  The movie follows the relationship between Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) and Sidney Fife (Jason Segel) that forms after the former’s wife worries about him not having any guy friends.  Their adventures are dastardly hilarious, but the movie’s unforeseen strength is its brain.  “I Love You, Man” is a brilliant satire of how we see relationships, executed by the juxtaposition of a romantic partnership and a casual friendship.  Slowly but surely, the functions of both of Peter’s relationships begin to switch.  If we weren’t aware of the context of Sidney and Peter’s male camaraderie, would we see them as lovers?  Would the casual observer?  Look deeper into “I Love You, Man” because it is the most understatedly brilliant movie of the year.  Slappin da bass?

“THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG”

The hand-drawn animation glory days are revived with great verve through “The Princess and the Frog.”  There is plenty to evoke these classics of my childhood, but even more is new – and no, I’m not talking about the race of the princess.  The movie is as lively as its New Orleans setting, with some larger-than-life characters that amuse and enchant.  Randy Newman’s jazzy score is a vivacious addition to a vibrant movie, and the songs aren’t too shabby either.  With Anika Noni Rose’s silky smooth voice behind the tunes, “The Princess and the Frog” is a high-spirited time as only Disney can give us.

“WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE”

Spike Jonze’s adaptation of the classic children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” earned plenty of enemies for its rather despondent outlook while aiming to entertain the youngsters.  It packs plenty of rollicking fun for that demographic, but the movie definitely means more to those who can look back on childhood for what it really is.  While there is plenty of bliss in this time, our youthful years are also filled with questioning and struggles.  Jonze gets the big picture, and his movie provides one of the few honest portrayals of childhood in cinema.  Stark and grim as it may be, we can’t argue with it.





REVIEW: Avatar

23 12 2009

It takes more than just gumption and chutzpa to get up on one of the world’s biggest stages and declare yourself king of the world; it takes conviction.  When James Cameron did just this at the Academy Awards in 1997 after “Titanic,” it was shocking to some and bombastic to others (I’m too young to remember the occasion).  What had he really done to gain the title “king of the world?”  What separates him from the dozens of directors who stood in the exact same place as he had?  What is the legacy of “Titanic” other than a firm position in the highest echelon of box office performance and a hefty loot on Oscar night?  According to IMDb, it is now the lowest rated of the five Best Picture nominees that year.  From what I understand, the movie electrified the people and was simply too popular to ignore.

Fast forward 12 years to today where James Cameron has just released “Avatar.”  If he got up on national television and screamed, “I’M KING OF THE WORLD,” I just might buy it.  His latest project is one fifteen years in the making, and he may have just sparked a revolution in cinema.  “Avatar” is breathtaking moviemaking at its finest, with astonishing visuals that are designed to do more than just floor you.  They engulf you and transport you to Pandora, a land of untold beauty complete with its own indigenous people, language, and wildlife, for an exhilarating ride and fascinating experience.

I knew the effects would be a slam dunk victory for Cameron, but I had my doubts about his ability to craft a story after “Titanic,” whose melodramatic plot I can usually summarize in one sentence (Leo and Kate have a lot of fun and the boat sinks).  Much to my surprise, Cameron actually constructs a very engaging story with undertones about the dangers of imperialism.  Cynics might call it the Smurf County production of “Pocahontas,” but the story still feels fresh even though it is a bit recycled.  Jake Sully (Sam Worthington of “Terminator Salvation” fame) is a paraplegic Marine who is torn between the two competing human forces on Pandora after he develops a special bond with the native Na’vi.  The scientists, led by the sassy cigarette-smoking Grace (Sigourney Weaver), want to discover how the Na’vi think in order to live in harmony with them.  The military operation, commanded by the hulking Colonel Quatritch (Stephen Lang), works in tandem with the financial side of the project, run by a thundering businessman doing his best Ari Gold impersonation (Giovanni Ribisi), to figure out the best way to get their hands on the bonanza underneath the sacred tree of the Na’vi.  They would prefer relocation but are not afraid to resort to subjugation if the natives prove to be a handful.  While Jake tries to serve two distinctly different agendas, he becomes quite taken by the Na’vi and the way they live in cooperation with nature – and not to mention quite smitten by the Amazonian Neytiri (Zoë Saldana).  Soon, the two forces tugging for Jake becomes not scientists vs. military but Na’vi vs. humans. Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #143

18 12 2009

You know what I hate?

Well, actually, if you read my factoids frequently, you know a lot of things that I hate.  In fact, I probably talk about what I hate more than I talk about what I love.  Why is that?  Probably because its more entertaining to listen to me talking about what I hate…

But anyways, things I hate #24601:

Theaters with no leg room.  I went to see “Avatar” in IMAX today, and they packed in so many rows that there is so room between them.  I had my friend wait in line while I went to go get some Buncha Crunch and popcorn, all the while with the need to use the restroom.  During my seven centuries waiting for the line to move, he managed to get in the theater to get us seats.  I couldn’t relieve myself toting around a bag of popcorn, so I had to go into the theater, deposit the goods, and squeeze back out.

But there was a slight problem with the plan.  My friend had plopped down two seats away from a very large man who, in order for me to get by, had to stand up and scoot back.  As soon as I sat down with the food, I knew I would feel bad having to make him get up two more times.  Yet at the same time, I could not sit through a 2 hour and 40 minute movie holding my bladder.

I had to awkwardly inch past the man two times.  I felt so bad making him get up, and I walked down the aisle muttering some idiotic combination of, “So sorry…excuse me.”

And to think, it could have all been avoided with a little leg room.





What To Look Forward To In … December 2009

14 11 2009

What is in my mind the finest month for the movies is almost here!  Let Marshall guide you through the best and steer you away from the worst, but most of all enjoy!  The studios have been holding back their best movies all year to dump them all here, where they can get serious awards consideration.

December 4

A major Oscars wild-card is “Brothers.”  No one really knows what to make of it.  If the movie hits big, it could completely change the game.  But it could just fly under the radar like most expect it to now.  However, the trailer makes it look as if it the movie could be absolutely mind-blowing.  Directed by Jim Sheridan, who has received six Academy Award nominations, “Brothers” follows Grace Cahill (Natalie Portman) as she and her daughters deal with the loss of her husband, Sam (Tobey Maguire), in war.  Sam’s brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) comes to live with Grace to lend a helping hand.  But romantic sparks fly between the two at precisely the wrong time: the discovery that Sam is alive and coming home.  With the two brothers both tugging Grace’s heart for their share, a different type of sparks fly.

You have heard me say plenty about “Up in the Air.”  If you haven’t read my Oscar Moment on the movie or heard my bliss at the release of the trailer, let me give you one more chance to hope on the bandwagon.

But the movies don’t stop there.  “Armored,” an action-drama that is tooting its own moral horn, starring Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne.  “Everybody’s Fine” appears to be a holiday movie, so that might be worth checking out if you’re in the spirit.  The movie, a remake of a 1990 Italian film by the same name, stars Robert DeNiro as a widower who reconnects with his estrange children.  And “Transylmania” looks to cash in on the vampire craze sweeping the nation by satirizing it, but I doubt it will be financially viable because it is being released by a no-name studio and without any big names.

December 11

The highlight of the weekend for many will be “The Princess and the Frog,” Disney’s return to the traditional animation by hand musical.  The movie looks to capitalize on what we know and love Disney musicals for, adding some catchy tunes to a fairy tale we have known since childhood.  Anika Noni Rose, best known for her role as Lorrell in the film adaptation of “Dreamgirls,” lends her talented voice to the princess Tiana.  As a huge fan of “Dreamgirls” during the winter of 2006, I couldn’t think of someone better equipped to handle the sweet, soft Disney music (which isn’t designed for belters like Beyoncé or Jennifer Hudson).  That being said, the music won’t sound like anything you’ve ever heard from a Disney fairy tale.  It is being scored by Randy Newman, not Alan Menken (“Beauty and the Beast,” etc.), and will have a jazzy feel much like its setting, New Orleans.

This week also boasts the opening of three major Oscar players. Two have been featured in Oscar Moments, “Invictus” and “A Single Man.” The former opens nationwide this Friday, the latter only in limited release. I’ll repost the trailers below because they are worth watching. But read the Oscar Moment if you want to know more about the movies.

According to the people that matter, “The Lovely Bones” has all the pieces to make a great movie. But for summer reading two years ago, I read the source material, Alice Sebold’s acclaimed novel. I found it dreadfully melodramatic and very depressing without any sort of emotional payoff to reward the reader for making it through. But maybe Hollywood will mess up the novel in a good way. If any movie could, it would be this one. With a director like Peter Jackson and a cast including Saiorse Ronan (“Atonement”), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, and Susan Sarandon, it could very well happen.  It opens in limited release on this date and slowly expands until its nationwide release on Martin Luther King Day weekend in 2010.

Read the rest of this entry »





FEATURE: What’s All The Fuss About “Avatar”?

22 08 2009

It has been 12 long years since James Cameron’s “Titanic” took the movie world by storm, becoming the sixth highest selling movie ever (NOTE: I didn’t say “highest grossing” movie because ticket prices have fluctuated so much over the years that the most fair way to gauge a movie’s success is through its adjusted gross.  This method takes the amount of tickets sold and multiplies it by the ticket price in the current time).  With “Titanic,” he got girls to come back week after week, swooning at Leonardo DiCaprio for over 3 hours.

Now, Cameron is aiming for a new group of moviegoers: the visual effects nerds.  “Avatar” has been hyped for years, and now we are finally getting to see what Cameron has been crafting for over a decade.  He has had the idea for quite a while, but he wanted to wait for the technology to be developed to make the movie the marvel that he imagines.  Because Cameron so deeply values the role of technology in making movies, I figure I should briefly explain how they are making this fantasy world.  The movie uses an advanced version of the motion capture technology used for movies like “The Polar Express,” allowing Cameron to see and control the virtual environment, normally added later, alongside the actors on the virtual stage.  They are also experimenting with allowing the actors while they are on the motion capture stage to interact fully with computer-generated characters.  The team has also made improvements to the motion capture technology, making the characters and their expressions look even more real.

The project has been mysterious for many years, and the first time that the general public really got a glimpse at it was at Comic-Con in San Diego a few weeks ago.  It was there that Cameron announced that he would be screening 15 minutes of the movie in select IMAX 3D theaters across the country, calling it “Avatar Day.”  That was yesterday, August 21st, and I was fortunate enough to view it.  The first official trailer for the film was released the day before, and all of a sudden, “Avatar” is everywhere.  Yet due to the project’s enigmatic nature, many normal moviegoers have no idea what all the buzz is about.  So, hopefully I can answer the question I posed in the title of this post. Read the rest of this entry »