James Cameron’s Avatar Teaser Trailer

Avatar

The teaser trailer for James Cameron’s new film Avatar has arrived.

The clip isn’t yet properly live at Apple, the site meant to be hosting it in the US, but you can see it in 1080p with this link, or at the French MSN site.

Here’s the quick recap: Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) arrives (in his wheelchair) on Pandora. He sees the planet’s beauty and, though him, we’re quickly introduced to the ten-foot tall alien Na’vi avatars. Implanted in his Na’vi body, Jake leads us on an exploration of Pandora. We see Zoe Saldana’s Na’vi character and Jake’s imprinting session with Pandora’s version of a dragon. (Hey Anne McCafferey, did you get a royalty check?) There’s even a glimpse of Pandora at night, and a little bit of the new power suits in action, which weren’t much seen in the Comic Con footage. We don’t see Sigourney Weaver, but do get a glimpse of Drag Me To Hell’s Dileep Rao as one of the Avatar technicians.

And, much as I thought when seeing footage in Hall H, it all looks a bit like a big adult Pixar movie. Which people are probably going to take as a pejorative, given that the whole thrust of Avatar so far has been that it is a game-changing experience. But when is being compared to Pixar ever an insult?

The real insult is from Fox, which keeps mismanaging Avatar’s debut. First there was the Avatar ticketing server crash and subsequent confirmation confusion, and now the teaser launch has been screwed up. In the long run this isn’t a big deal, but creating hype for a film is all about getting the moment right and that hasn’t been happening so far.

Official Plot Synopsis: AVATAR takes us to a spectacular new world beyond our imagination, where a reluctant hero embarks on a journey of redemption and discovery, as he leads a heroic battle to save a civilization. The film was first conceived by Cameron 14 years ago, when the means to realize his vision did not yet exist. Now, after four years of actual production work, AVATAR delivers a fully immersive cinematic experience of a new kind, where the revolutionary technology invented to make the film, disappears into the emotion of the characters and the sweep of the story.

  • I really want to watch it... but I have to hold out for 720p from Apple.
  • The 1080p link has always been included in this post. What more can you ask for?
  • HerbertKornfeld
    A million-80P?
  • turok1134
    I'm guessing his computer can't run 1080p videos. I know mine can't.
  • mbellerbrock
    Yeah, I tried the 1080p but it's a bit choppy on my computer.
  • siyrobbo
    yeah just right click save target as, looks great in 1080p
  • Put your hand in your pocket and get a better graphics card
  • Huh. Anyone else think the CGI looks really...animated? It doesn't look realistic at all. I mean, it looks interesting, but its bordering on a Pixar film or something.
  • Ali
    No, I was thinking that, too. I can't deny that it's incredible animation, but while watching, I couldn't shake the thought that what I was looking at was seeing was all computer-generated. Still, excellent design.
  • BlackManJew
    If it was directed by anyone other than James Cameron it would not be a big deal... but the critics will eat this up just like they do with all the things Spielberg has been shitting out the last few years. this movie looks awful.
  • Dude
    saying this looks like a Pixar film is an insult to Pixar.

    this just looks like an adult "Arthur and the Invisibles"
  • Nashawa71
    Agree, although I would say it looks more like "Battle for Terra"
  • Wow. You said what I was thinking. Either way, I'm guessing this is going to be more "Abyss" and less "Aliens," quality-wise. That's not a terrible thing - - the Abyss led to Terminator 2 in terms of FX -- but there's nothing yet in this teaser that makes my mouth water too much.
  • existenz
    I was waiting for someone to mention Terra. The Na'vi and the aliens in Terra look quite similar.

    But in all seriousness, I'm sure Avatar will kick ass.
  • atothej
    I felt exactly the same thing... I was really expecting a lot more with all the hype. I am almost certain that they must have shown something better at ComiCon or it looks better in 3D.

    I don't know, now I am not that disappointed not going to avatar day: it's much easier to hold out 'till December...
  • lipslikeasukal
    Well, this is just a teaser. But then again, there are some pretty good ones out there.

    Avatar looks good, but so far I have not been blown away. I hope the 3D multiplies the experience by a million because this feels like 10,000 B.C. to me.
  • You know, I got the feeling the CGI characters would not look very good from the stills of the Na'vi. Now it's pretty much confirmed. It's not really the way they look (although I always thought the character design was terrible) but the way they move. Why on Earth does District 9 have aliens that not only look more real, but move like large organisms would move.

    My excitement for this film has gone from a 100 when it was being developed, to a 90 when I heard about the 3D and the blue aliens to a 70 when I heard about the use of motion capture and many completely CGI characters (including the main character) to now somewhere south of 50. My only questions at this point are: will this end James Cameron's career if it is actually costing over 400 mil (looking at this, it really shouldn't cost this much; however ask Michael Cimino about huge budgets and little returns) and if he survives this, when do I get my Battle Angel movie exactly? I knew he should have done that first!
  • ohnoitsgojira
    I'm sorry, but did you watch the trailer in 3D??? Didn't think so. How are you complaining about the special effects then? Stop crying.
  • mbellerbrock
    3D doesn't magically make CGI better looking, but I hope it looks better tomorrow in IMAX 3D regardless.
  • I'm sorry but are you thick? 3D takes what's on the screen and makes it pop out. It doesn't make movement look more realistic, it attempts to put the viewer in the environment. It does not make that environment look better.

    Furthermore, the vast majority of people who will see this movie will see it with a regular projector not a 3D projector. Also, the trailer was released in 2D. Stop acting like I refused to wear 3D glasses for a 3D trailer and was complaining that it was blurry.
  • ohnoitsgojira
    My point is that nobody, except a select few, is in a position right now to judge the visual effects of this film because they haven't seen the film as it is intended, 3D. Not seeing this film in 3D is like seeing a film panned-and-scanned.
  • Again, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Pan and Scan has to do with composition. If this trailer was a Pan & Scan trailer, how exactly would that affect the quality of the CGI? The answer: it wouldn't. It would affect composition. I'm not complaining about composition. I'm complaining about quality.

    The quality of the character CGI is not very good. The movements are robotic. This assessment is not affected by compositional choices like 3D or Pan and Scan or 3:4 screen ratio because they don't actually affect what is displayed on-screen. If this trailer was in B&W but the film was in color then you might have a point. In this case character movement will still seem robotic in 3D no matter what.
  • ohnoitsgojira
    LOL. My analogy works just fine. Pan and scan has to do with cropping the image, which I guess you could say deals with composition because you are limiting the view of the original image. This limitation is exactly what you are experiencing when not viewing "Avatar" in its native 3D. I realize the idea of true stereoscopic 3D is a new concept for you, so I would suggest reading up on the production techniques for this film, and you might have a better time understanding my point. Limiting your judgment of this film's special effects to the viewing of a compressed "HD" teaser is a mistake. I never judge any film's CGI based on a trailer over the internet. Also, maybe you could explain what format uses a 3:4 screen ration?
  • Obviously 3:4 is a typo.

    You're pretty much making the same argument. Still, you cannot dispute that the CGI character movement will be the same in 3D. That's not something 3D deals with.

    And again, Pan and Scan is a technique used to display part of what's already there. It doesn't improve or degrade the quality of the existing elements used in the film (set design, CGI, wardrobe, etc). It may make the shot look a little strange for a second but that's it. It doesn't make the movement of cloth or people look different.

    The difference between 3D and 2D is irrelevant to this discussion. Let me end this right now: do people move differently in real life (that is, in 3D) than they do on a movie screen (which is 2D)? No. I've never watched real people in a film move in a way that I thought was inconsistent with real life movement just because that film was not in three dimensions. That's because they're real people. In 2D or 3D, they move the same way.

    So in this case, whether the female Na'vi with the bow and arrow moves in an unrealistic way or not, it won't change depending on the depth of the image. It'll only change if they re-render the movement itself.
  • ohnoitsgojira
    You're right, of course I can't dispute what CGI character movement looks like in 3D, because I've never seen a true 3D film, and neither have you unless you've been to any of the three 20 minute screenings that have happened before tomorrow's.

    3D actually has a lot to do with a characters movement though, as you are now dealing with a true z-axis in front of the audience, as apposed to subject-camera distance. If you have ever seen a 3D movie then you would notice this, only "Avatar" utilizes the effect in a truer manner since the film was actually shot in 3D on the set, and not just digitally altered later in post. This is a huge difference, as the filmmakers have to be increasingly more conscious of the actor's blocking, and the parallax of the camera lenses. The wrapping effect of the two images is also going to effect the movement within the shot. I think 3D is quite relevant to this discussion, as your major qualms are with the watered down, distilled 2D versions of 3D images. I truly think the movement will be different when viewed in 3D, but I honestly don't have any problem with what I'm seeing on this crappy "HD" teaser. Who's to say what an alien life form should move like? It would be very selfish to quantify their movement based on ours. What a terrible assumption.
  • First of all, don't try to turn this into some bizarre discussion about the self-centered nature of humans and our assumptions.

    Second, no matter what Cameron did, there is no way possible that his 3D will look as good as real life 3D. You said I've never seen a true 3D film (whatever that means) yet you ignore the fact that I'm not a blind person. I've seen the way three dimensions actually work. And as I said before, real life people in 3D move the same as real life people in 2D. By your logic, people in 2D should move in a less lifelike way because they are now in two dimensions instead of three. However, we know that's not true.

    How in the world does it even make sense to you that something could look lifelike in an imitation of real life 3D but robotic in 2D, while at the same time almost every film ever made is taking the best possible 3D image (reality) and converting it seamlessly to 2D without any of the loss in lifelike movement you've suggested?
  • ohnoitsgojira
    If you don't understand the difference between a film shot in 3D, and intended for 3D viewing, i.e. "Avatar," vs films that have been created for 2D viewing then run through a post-process to give them a 3D effect, then we have nothing to discuss. This is the fundamental point of my argument which you are failing to grasp.
  • Necrosis
    I agree that this movie looks like crap. The 3D might looking 3D with glasses but that doesn't change the cheap looking character models and the not very detailed textures. I don't understand how this is costing so much. District 9 was made on a 30 million dollar budget and blew the realism of this away. Somethings wrong here.
  • ohnoitsgojira
    I never said I thought the film looked like crap, quite the contrary.

    I am interested in how thin these columns can get though.
  • Necrosis is agreeing with me, not you.
  • ohnoitsgojira
    oh sweet.
  • samboni
    where the heck did you get the number for over 400 mil from?
  • From Kyle Newman.
  • plagueoftruth
    Yeah, it's actually supposed to be about 450 mil right now.
  • No it's not. It's actually $240 million. All these inflated numbers of $400 million plus are from estimates that are including the research and development costs... and not the production costs only.
  • plagueoftruth
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but R & D money spent on the film is still...money spent on the film right? Whether the studio wants to spin that number down by saying only $240 million was spent on production, it's still $400 mil spent on the film.
  • fefjwie
    If they used that much money, the script has to be damn good. I think producer read the script, BEFORE they product the movie. So they know what they're doing.
  • IK
    Maybe they would give it thumbs up or thumbs down if it were anyone else, but this is from the guy who directed what remains the highest grossing film of all time (w/o adjusting for inflation of course). He could have pitched a $400m film romcom and they would have signed up sight unseen. This looks like terrible. 3D is only going to exacerbate its problems. Now I'll feel slightly queasy while disappointed in the CGI. Photorealistic my @$$.
  • PEter
    Viewing this in its intended form (3D) is a very relevant argument. Personally I don't know how I feel. Never seen anything like it before, but If you frame by frame it, the animation looks as close to photo-realistic as we can possibly get right now and much better than I initially though. I can't recall a camera being freer to explore the world of a film. I saw what you saw until I looked more closely. It's jarring because the colors are so vibrant and the depth of detail almost overwhelming. Within the context of the story I imagine this contrast will make a lot of sense. I'm intrigued.
  • Necrosis
    You have not seen District 9 then. This animation looks horrible. Even Jurassic Park blows it away.
  • Peter
    I've seen district 9 twice. I liked it. Blomkamp very cleverly uses different styles of film grammar and other visual fx tricks to achieve the effect he was going for; A pseudo realistic documentary with a splash of saving private Ryan. Jurassic park holds up pretty well, but is likewise striving for a 'real world' tone that Cameron doesn't look to be concerned with. Avatar is clearly a Sci-fi FANTASY taking place in a vital, vibrant alien world made using pioneering technology designed to be experienced in 3D. I can't take seriously anyone claiming that the animation looks horrible. Over hyped, probably. Jarring in it's insane detail, definitely. But if that prevents you from suspending your disbelief then as a film fan I just feel sorry for you.
  • PEter
    I've seen district 9 twice. I liked it. Blomkamp very cleverly uses different styles of film grammar and other visual fx tricks to achieve the effect he was going for; A pseudo realistic documentary with a splash of saving private Ryan. Jurassic park holds up pretty well, but is likewise striving for a 'real world' tone that Cameron doesn't look to be concerned with. Avatar is clearly a Sci-fi FANTASY taking place in a vital, vibrant alien world made using pioneering technology designed to be experienced in 3D. I can't take seriously anyone claiming that the animation looks horrible. Over hyped, probably. Jarring in it's insane detail, definitely. But if that prevents you from suspending your disbelief then as a film fan I just feel sorry for you.
  • Rick
    This movie looks awesome. Maybe because of all the hype you expected to go rats in the walls insane but you will have to wait for the real aliens to land for that. The cgi in this is the best I've even seen. This movie will be awesome, James Cameron will burn money to stay warm this winter.
  • The problem isnt CGI, that makes it seem a unreal. In those terms its mostly much there - lightning, details etc. Yes, some scenes had that over-the-top-perfect look, but thats not a bad thing. What makes it look unreal is design. What you know cant be real, doesnt look real.
    Take a look for example at those daylit forest scenes - take away godrays and that ship and there you go.
  • mangoshakes
    well then what's the point of CGI is we'd only make stuff that exists
  • plagueoftruth
    Agreed. I'm a huge fan of Cameron's but 'District 9' had more realistic looking aliens with a budget 1/15th of 'Avatar's.'
  • ohnoitsgojira
    don't make me laugh, lol.
  • skadloori
    it's not about getting real, it's about imagining things that are not real. they are two different things.
  • Mr. X
    SO this movie should be classified as a sci-fi fantasy?
  • plagueoftruth
    I would subscribe that it's about imagining things that are not real and making the audience believe they're real.
blog comments powered by Disqus