08.21.09 AVATAR AND DELGO, SITTING IN A TREE
After the Avatar trailer dropped yesterday, some sites mentioned that this approx. $300 million film which was touted as being like nothing we’ve ever seen nonetheless looked familiar. One writer, who saw the full-length teaser in a London theater, even compared it to Ferngully: The Last Rainforest. A couple of other sites made a particularly amusing comparison: Delgo, the worst bomb ever:
Now that the dust has settled on the weekend’s box office, Delgo (trailer here) has officially locked up the worst opening ever for a film in wide release. It opened on 2,160 screens, earning $511,920 for a per-screen average of $237 a screen, shattering the previous worst, P2, which had a $937 average.
Movieline did a thorough comparison of both movies (most likely an instance of parallel thinking and boilerplate scripting, although the script for Avatar was written five years earlier). They also, along with denihilation, provide some side-by-side photo comparisons (some of which are after the jump).
~ robopanda








There are 27 comments about:
AVATAR AND DELGO, SITTING IN A TREE
At least the graphics look nice, unlike my Avatari game.
James Cameron, James Saweron, James Conquerederon.
If there’s one thing I don’t miss about the 70’s, it’s album covers.
In fairness, I could use scenes from Jurassic Park, Batman, and Braveheart to do the exact same thing.
Wow, I commented 9 minutes before anyone else? Why were you guys so avatardy?
BTK, the trailer just came out yesterday, and I’m already sick of this movie.
**WARNING SERIOUS MOVIE TALK BEYOND**
I like Cameron, including the interesting 25% of Titanic, but I’m not feeling Avatar at all. It’s incredibly cartoony looking, and it is certainly not fucking my eyeballs as it has been suggested by others on-line that it would. It has that metallic, static feel like all mostly CGI movies do, the irony being it takes place mostly outdoors.
Donkey, that would be awesome. Make it so #2.
There was plenty of smug Cameron bashing before Titanic was released so i wouldn’t write this off just yet. Those Blue Meanies don’t look too brill though. Kinda like the lame CGI creatures from I Am Legend.
Damnit, Jirish! Use your imagination instead. I’m too
lazy</del busy!See? I can’t even be bothered to close my HTML tags.
No I think Jirish has a point, shit or get off the pot DonHod.
Wow…maybe they’ll overdub Sam Worthington’s voice with Freddie Prinze Jr’s.
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3 (couldn’t find the pic of the actual scene, but that exact angle is in the 1989 Burton film)
Pic 4
pic 5
Any more questions?
Done, it’ll appear as soon as the moderator decides that I didn’t just post a bunch of spam.
Your post is awaiting moderation
Do they at least show the blue chicks naked in this? 12 foot tall naked Smurfs, crikey!
hahahahaha holy shit. I was joking but that’s amazing!
I peed a little when I saw the batman toy.
Also, I dare anyone to look at the Braveheart pic without picturing him scream anti-Semitic statements at a police officer. Try it, I’ll wait.
Um just saw the 3D sneak peak and the 2D trailer does not do it justice at all. I shared the same thoughts as Hairy Nutsack for it being “incredibly cartoony looking” but it definitely makes a difference seeing more than 2 minutes of it on the big screen. It’s going to be good.
But notice the wheeled warrior. My first reaction at seeing the trailer was, “It’s the future and we’re still using wheelchairs?”
kzoo, it’ll be good if you see the movie in 3D.
And if needs a gimmick to be enjoyable, then it’s really not that good, is it?
i’m not sure that 3D is a gimmick – was color tv a gimmick back when it first came out? I’m pretty sure its just a superior technology. And since it was made specifically for 3D judging it on a 2D trailer is just dumb.
Do you need special glasses to watch TV in color?
I think the 3D made UP better, it would still have had me crying in the first 10 minutes like I was sitting in front of Chodin and Pauly in 2D though.
According to wikipedia: The stereoscopic era of motion pictures began in the late 1890s when British film pioneer William Friese-Greene filed a patent for a 3-D movie process.
If 3D is “superior technology” and has been around for over 100 years, then why don’t all movies use it?
Because it’s a gimmick heavily relied on by shitty movies. As Michelle said, it made UP better, but UP was a great movie without 3D. Great movies filmed in color are still good movies in black and white. If Avatar is a great movie, it should still be great without the 3D.
Too bad it looks like a giant turd when it’s not in 3D.
Jackiton! – no, but you needed a color tv.
Comment on this post:
You must be logged in to post a comment. Not yet a member, register for free.