Fan Edit Forum • View topic

theslime · **Joined:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:34 am **Posts:** 446

The man asked (and you were probably asking him the question not me, I know).

I've already had people trying to convince me, in spades, IRL. I don't hear it anymore.

Ghostcut · **Posted:** Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:55 pm

Fair nuff.

JasonN · **Posted:** Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:40 am

Well, RedLetterMedia has posted his review of Avatar:

Kevinicus · **Joined:** Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:33 pm **Posts:** 309

JasonN wrote:

Well, RedLetterMedia has posted his review of Avatar:

Pretty much 100% spot on accurate. The only thing I could disagree with was the comment near the end that there were some strong performances. Maybe Zaldana was good (the only character with any personality), but beyond that, nothing that good.

elbarto1 · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:04 pm **Posts:** 3080

coming from someone who enjoyed the film - the review is still spot on.
I agree with pretty much everything he said, but I still enjoyed the film.

white43 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:58 pm

Have to say, everything the guy says is spot on and it's how I feel about Avatar.

I think the effects are awesome, but the storyline is too basic and stereotypical.

I expected more.

But when I look at Hollywood today - and having watched 20 mins of T2 tonight - it just seems so apparent, that Hollywood is frightened to do character driven films. Thinking about Terminator:Salvation, the simple idea of doing a film based around a single character and their rise is lost except in comedy. The bombardment of effects and overlong action scenes that we don't care about seems to have become the norm.

We faneditors attack every film that is made now. Surely that says something about the films that are made today. We try to cut down on the bullshit. Nowadays, it seems every film that is released we have to consider. Imagine us back in the 80's...I like most of those films, and we barely touch those ones! But now, in the first two decades of the 2000's, almost everything needs the fanedit touch. What went wrong? Was it the effects? Or was it the shift from character driven films to effects?

/weeps.

theslime · **Joined:** Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:34 am **Posts:** 446

It's not the effects. It's the artistic ineptitude of a lot of writers and directors coupled with a business-like approach to making films.

Peter Bart (current editor of Variety, and with decades in the business) said it best last year:

Quote:

Passion has come to be in short supply not only in the selling of movies but also in their development. In the 60s and 70s, young filmmakers would pitch their projects in a near frenzy. Every film seemed a passion project. When Hal Ashby and Cat Stevens came in to tell me they had figured out how to craft Harold and Maude as a whimsical semi-musical, I felt I’d be physically endangered were I to stand in their way. There was simply no way of saying no to Robert Altman or a young Steven Spielberg.

Today’s filmmakers come equipped with data on how their movies might do overseas, on DVD, or on the Internet. Decisions on whether to green-light a project, they realize, are based on research, and they come prepared to deal with demographic realities.

Do yourselves a favour and read the whole thing. It's the best thing you're likely to read on Hollywood as (failing) business today.

TMBTM · **Posted:** Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:58 am

I like RLM reviews, they are fun and entertaining and I usualy agree with most of it, but I don't agree when he says that the Na'vi are only peaceful creatures.
Tsu'tey (the guy who wants to marry Neytiri) is not, and through all the movie until the end they show great skills in fighting arts, both on the ground and in the air.
They just fight a (apparentely) stronguest enemy.
And not all the humans in the movie are heading to war.
That is an argument even more simplistic than the movie itself.

white43 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:21 pm

elbarto1 · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:04 pm **Posts:** 3080

shot with arrows yo!
:lol:

killbillme · **Posted:** Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:22 pm

Here's a nice article on editing AVATAR.
love it or hate it, it certainly pushes the envelop and gives us a glint of the future of filmmaking.
EDITORS GUILD

boon23 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:53 pm

white43 wrote:

very cool.

Metrostar · **Posted:** Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:10 am

I finally got to see this in 2-D with the wife and have to say that I was REALLY bored until the final battle and even then, underwhelmed. My wife was bored after 2 minutes, and didn't have one nice thing to say about it. I will never watch this again as it is, it's just not good enough. I also feel very strongly that 3-D is just a gimmick and completely unnecessary and as long as I have the choice, I wont watch another 3-D movie again. Avatar looked just as good in 2-D to me. I watched "Did You Hear About The Morgan's" last night and enjoyed it more. Crazy!!! :shock:

nOmArch · **Posted:** Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:43 pm

funnily enough i actually enjoyed it more in 2D.

Metrostar · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:47 am

I've just read this on Myspace:

"Avatar: Re-Release with New Footage.

You’d think that $2.6 billion would satisfy the production team for the most successful movie in history, but the truth is that 20th Century Fox is actually thinking about re-releasing ‘Avatar’ with some never-before-seen footage held in James Cameron’s archive.

This idea had all started during an investor conference in New York City last week, when IMAX head Richard Gelfond said the filmmaker had 40 additional minutes at his disposal. Now the studios are really considering releasing this extra footage this summer or fall, “when there’s less competition” (the ‘competition’ is probably refers to the movie ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ now being shown in most of the 3-D theaters).

However, there’s also talk about releasing a two dimentional DVD of the original version of ‘Avatar’, in April or May, before the new version hits the screen. The question is: will the fans rush to the theaters to see the extra 40 minutes?"

I'm sorry, but the last thing this movie needs is to be longer. Might be good for faneditors to have more choice of footage for the 90 minute version I would like to see. :wat:

Uncanny Antman · **Joined:** Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:44 am **Posts:** 1571

Apology accepted.

Metrostar · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:35 pm

You're welcome.

nOmArch · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:50 pm

Quote:

The question is: will the fans rush to the theaters to see the extra 40 minutes?"

this fan will be, far as im concerned Avatar is more an experience than a movie in the general sense of the word, and seeing what is essentially the Directors Cut (which cameron said all along he would be releasing) on the big screen again in 3D is not something i would want to miss.

I still think they should be spending the time making the home 3D experience better than worrying about a Re-release though.

Heinrich · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:28 pm

yeah! that´s exciting!

i´m going!

if james had the four hours version in the third run i would go too!

TMBTM · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:20 pm

I thought the extended version was planed as only 12 minutes more?

JasonN · **Posted:** Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:39 pm

Personally, I see this stunt as James Cameron's attempt to grow his balls back after losing to his ex-wife for Best Picture and Best Director awards at the Oscars. :-P

As a viewer, I'll say straight off the bat that I hated the theatrical version of Avatar and that I have never found any of the "Director's/Extended" cuts of Cameron's films to be as good as the threatrical cuts (expecially with Terminator 2 and Aliens).

As a faneditor, however, I will admit that I'm rather curious about this new 40 minutes and whether or not they can be used to improve/alter/edit the film into something different that I might want to watch (hell, Episode II: Attack of the Clones was one of the worse movies that I've ever seen, yet I somehow managed to fanedit that movie into a film that I care about and enjoy watching).

JasonN · **Posted:** Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:34 pm

So now instead of having an additional 40 minutes of new footage, the Extended/Director's Cut is now only gonna have 6 new minutes:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/20/avatar-theatrical-re-release-in-august-with-additional-footage-sequel-will-focus-on-oceans-of-pandora

Yeah.... color me oh so completely "shocked" over this news. :roll:

TV's Frink · **Joined:** Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:23 am **Posts:** 1593

Is it possible that the 40 minutes will still be on the eventual EE blu-ray, and the 6 new minutes is for the theatrical re-release only? The article doesn't really say.