While I didn’t see the Avatar trailer in 3D I did see it in a nice theater and frankly, I was bored. There were lots of pretty pictures, okay, then what? If I just want pretty pictures, I can go to a museum. (Even here in cultureless LA, we have museums. lol)

The last time I was really blown away by an effect? Probably in the Terminator 2 when the semi plows it way off the bridge into the LA river system. A practical effect done with a real truck.

I love effects as much as the next guy, but I’m not impressed ONLY with effects. This summers Moon and District 9 (With a combined effects budget that wouldn’t have purchased one minute of Transformers 2.) boht blew me away with the visuals they presented. They used the effects to present a well told story and as a whole, they worked great since I could believe them. The same way we both found Yoda beliavable in The Empire Strikes Back.

I think part of the bad reaction and love of puppetry is the fact puppetry has been around longer and older people (hah don’t mean to say you’re old) have been exposed to it longer. Fairly detailed/good CGI hasn’t been around too long.

As someone who got really into films (as in was cognizant enough to actively watch films… i.e. not a child) as a teenager–when CGI was starting to become frequently used–I never really liked puppetry/practical effects. I went back and saw many oldish films and while some of them were just fine… I never *believed* any of them. When I see Yoda I still think *RUBBER.* (Or whatever polymer they used to make him.) I think similarly when I watch ET, etc. The only practical effects I like are Jurassic Park, the Thing, the Wizard of Oz (Deviation: someone bring back 3-strip Technicolor… ARG!), Aliens, and the Fly. (Although, parts of the Fly also scream RUBBER SUIT!). I dunno, maybe I’ve seen too many films but I just don’t buy puppetry/practical effects and even some makeup jobs. People were positively talking about the green alien lady in Star Trek but she also screamed “GIRL IN ASHEN GREEN PAINT!”

My point is probably getting lost here but I guess I’ll end with my opinion on Avatar. Yes, I was one of the people eagerly awaiting the trailer but with bated breath. I thought and still think there were/are a tad too many eager teens who thought/think its going to be the best thing ever. I am a tad disappointed by the trailer. I thought “cartoony” but soon decided it was poor design choice that lead to this initial assessment. The characters grew on me a bit and I like them better now (but not as much as I had hoped). I’m confused as how to address “photorealism” thing now because I’ve decided the Na’vi and Avatar in the stills look like they could be real objects and thus in a sense “photoreal.” However, they don’t look like living beings. They look like wax figures, albeit REAL wax figures (versus something like Beowulf which had a lot of the digital sheen still). I don’t think it’s 100% the way there but definitely a significant step up. I think the reaction would not have been so negative had some people “put it on a pedestal” beforehand.

2. One of the points that you’ve made is that knowledge is what’s keeping us from believing our eyes. There have been a ton of studies done to show that as quick as technology is at creating false images, our eyes are just as fast at learning what’s fake. Bad for CGI. Good if you’re being chased by a tiger.

3. That digital creation Soderbergh got to star in The Girlfriend Experience wasn’t believable at all as a human being.

I live close to an IMAX 3D theater. I am lucky. Many do not. Many more may not experience Aatar until it hits DVD which in no way will be able to compete with a true IMAX screening. A film, in my opinion, should be able to overcome how it is viewed and come down to the story. I haven't seen Avatar or any of the Avatar day stuff so I cannot comment on the story. I am optimistic that it will be great since T2 is my favorite film and was written an directed by Cameron. But what I'm trying to say is that when I sit down to watch it again at home a year from now I don't want it to be unwatchable. If the digital effects are only stunning in IMAX and seem like Beowolf on a normal 2D screen or TV then all that money did nothing but inflate Camerons ego. Let us hope it's not crap when we rewatch it at home

PS. I love puppets and minitures and animatronics soooo much. The reason the muppets are so awesome and appealing is because they” exist” in the reAL world.

I'm not an Avatar hater and I can't wait to see it but, like writer of the article states, Cameron & Fox set themselves up for a fall with all the hyperbolic bullshit they came out with, then released a trailer that looked like a glorified cartoon.

He was commenting how the trailer didnt wow everyone and how the hype dropped off after people saw it. That happened because they didnt see it in 3d. Most of the hype around this movie was based on how amazing its going to look. It was designed for a 3d capable cinema and you dont get the entire effect or the full vision of the director watching it on a normal screen. That is all.

The movie may end up being terrible. I have no idea. All im saying is the special effects are revolutionary but only when viewed as intended…on a 3d capable screen.

If a movie only works in IMAX 3D then it's a bad movie, people watch and enjoy movies on 3 inch ipod screens ffs, a good movie is good movie no matter how big or small the screen. The biggest screen I've seen Lawrence Of Arabia on is my 36″ screen at home and it's still great.

If the only thing Avatar has going for it is looks then it's crap simple as.

When you see it in IMAX its nothing short of mindblowing. Its the very definition of must see in theaters. If you dont see it the way it was meant to be seen of course its going to lose something. Those digital creatures you speak of look real when viewed properly and this is coming from someone who can spot a digital effect anywhere at any time.