|
|
Post by Beebs on Dec 21, 2007 14:47:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by rokukyoshigyatso12 on Dec 31, 2007 14:21:29 GMT -6
This is so cool !! I can really enjoy this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Dec 31, 2007 14:31:00 GMT -6
Glad to hear that, but what did that have to do with the topic? xDD I'm not so sure about live action...it might ruin the feel of Avatar.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Jan 10, 2008 5:16:16 GMT -6
Well I am worried how the movie will turn out. If they make everything Hollywood, I'm worried about how M. Night Shyamalan will produce the movie. Although, I am beginning to think it could be good. If they don't do what all of the other movies do and completely rely on CGI like Star Wars and Transformers did, tt could be good.
M. Night Shyamalan might even cast people from the four nation's based people. I am not sure on that, please do not quote me on it. He said that the kids who are going to star in the movie are probably at school right now and do not even realize they are going to become famous. Plus Shyamalan is an Avatar fan and we still have Mike and Bryan there. I'm sure he isn't going to screw up, I have faith in Mr. Shyamalan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Jan 10, 2008 13:02:51 GMT -6
I really hope you're right. It's hard for me to picture characters like Momo and Appa though in live action. xDD From what I read on his website, production for Avatar is going to start later this year. They're already scouting location. Hopefully this whole thing with James Cameron won't affect the release of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Jan 10, 2008 18:04:30 GMT -6
Well the reason why the movie is called Avatar the Last Airbender is to avoid conflict with James Cameron. I was expecting Shyamalan to create his own version about another Avatar, but to be honest. Live action is the really real logical step. If it was animated, then it will be nothing more then a rehashing of the series.
Besides, not all of Shyamalan's movie were all bad. I really enjoyed Signs very much. That is the only other film I saw really. Lady in the Water, I thought the story was unique and it was an interesting idea. Differently the opening scene. However the movie was just too long and boring. This is also the first movie he is going to make that ISN'T his idea. He said most of the time he writes his movies by himself, but his time he said he was lucky to have Mike and Bryan there with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Jan 10, 2008 18:25:20 GMT -6
Well, still, even if it keeps the title of the show, Cameron still might have a fit. It seems likely that the final title will end up being "The Last Aribender." Which isn't entirely bad I guess. Lady in the Water was very unique, so points for M. Night there. Most of his movies are very good. And instead of traditional animation or live-action, I think they should go with CGI, like Advent Children or the new Resident Evil movie coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Jan 10, 2008 19:20:40 GMT -6
Wasn't Advent Children completely computer animated? Resident Evil, that still has locations and actors/actresses. That is really completely CGI. I was we were still in the 80s and 90s were they used props and you were amazed at how they did everything. Nowadays when you see something like that, you reaction is basically nice cgi. If you know how to use cgi you could make a good film and it is differently needed for the bending elements.
Plus, Shyamalan's movies haven't really had much CGI. Although that creature in Lady in the Water was creepy looking and it really was a nice use of it. I do not think James Carmeron has a problem with it. Since he probably realize that there are other television shows/video games/movies that used the name Avatar. He probably knows the title isn't really original. I believe there was an article online somewhere that someone asked him this and he said he realized there was another Avatar movie coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Jan 11, 2008 18:45:59 GMT -6
Yes, Advent Children was completely CGI, along with a new Resident Evil movie that is coming out, which I think would be a good choice for the Avatar movie. And Stewart Little, a previous M. Night adaptation, used lots of CGI, so it wouldn't be that weird if they used it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasmic Canadian on Feb 6, 2008 20:46:51 GMT -6
First movie will be directed in late 2008, early 2009. Each film is supposedly sperated by 2 years.
2010, 2012, 2014.
good thing: Avatar will last a while longer.
bad thing: How the hell are they gonna shoot Aang? He's gonna be like 16/17 by the time they finish.
|
|
|
|
Post by zukobaby on Feb 6, 2008 21:23:05 GMT -6
They'll probably just shoot it all at once like they did with Lord of the Rings.
Anyways, it seems like since the show is full of "twists", Shyamalan is the perfect director... Yes, I was being sarcastic, but at least I'm eing real when Isy he's better than what Michael Bay would do. *shudder*
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasmic Canadian on Feb 9, 2008 2:16:52 GMT -6
No, Shyamalan stated it would take 8 years of his life. He started in 2006. first film hits theaters 2010. that's 4, then next one hits theaters 2012, that's 6, last one hits theaters 2014 {god I'll be old by then, damn you Shylaman} which equals 8 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Feb 9, 2008 2:49:08 GMT -6
No, Shyamalan stated it would take 8 years of his life. He started in 2006. first film hits theaters 2010. that's 4, then next one hits theaters 2012, that's 6, last one hits theaters 2014 {god I'll be old by then, damn you Shylaman} which equals 8 years. Where'd you get this info? The IMDB page isn't even up yet... |
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasmic Canadian on Feb 9, 2008 3:05:45 GMT -6
Commentary on the Avatar dvds.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Feb 9, 2008 3:17:12 GMT -6
IMDb isn't really a reliable source. Anyways, they are probably cast for someone who could play the part of a twelve year old for a good twelve years. Plus seeing how Aang in the series did mature and you could see it in his body movements and face. They will probably do the same as they did for the series that made Aang mature and look like he's older. However he is still the same age of twelve (possibly going on to 13). Man, I wish we could all get together and watch the movie together. Maybe we should plan a small meeting amongst ourselves and see the movie together as one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Sarcasmic Canadian on Feb 9, 2008 3:20:15 GMT -6
That would be so awesome. If it was bad, we could tear it apart.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Feb 9, 2008 3:26:59 GMT -6
o_0 Riiiight...
Anyway, IMDB is one of the most reliable sources for stuff like this, as is Wiki. Because they're user editable, they maintain a system of checks and balances. And M Night commented on the DVDs? o.o?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Feb 9, 2008 3:43:18 GMT -6
M. Night Shyamalan had a sit down interview with Mike and Bryan on the bonus disk on the Book 2 Boxset. Also I heard too many complaints that IMDb always gets it's information wrong. Both Wikipedia and IMDb have been cited for so many mistakes made by stupid people that it has nearly became harder to trust. Many schools do not even allow Wikipedia to be used as a source.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beebs on Feb 9, 2008 13:05:52 GMT -6
IMDB goofs up from time to time on certain things, but what other source could you possibly use for stuff like that? And Wiki does have a lot of mistakes, but they're like corrected within a few minutes after being posted....they're the best sources for stuff like that on the net...
|
|
|
|
Post by wiiboy on Feb 9, 2008 13:44:52 GMT -6
Encyclopedia.com seems like another good site with information. I guess Wikipedia is a good source in order to have references linked to it from Encyclopedia. That site is cool, because it has basically Dictionary and Theocritus.com. But still, how do you know the person is fixing the right thing?
|
|
|.Blog.Portfolio.Smexy.||:
