First Look: New Avatar Na'vi Photos are Worth Checking Out

August 26, 2009
Source: MarketSaw

Stephen Lang in Avatar

I'm trying to take a break from covering Avatar to give it some time to breathe and for it to soak in with everyone, but Empire busted out their own special Avatar issue this week that features some great new photos inside that I couldn't pass up. Unfortunately since the photos aren't online, MarketSaw had to scan them straight out of the magazine, but they still look pretty damn good. Not only do we get to see what Sigourney Weaver looks like as a Na'vi, but there are better shots of Sam Worthington as a Na'vi, the beautiful Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, and Stephen Lang as the badass Col. Quaritch (above). Check ’em out!

Click any of the photos below to see more at MarketSaw. And don't forget to pick up this copy of Empire!

Avatar - Na'vi

Avatar - Na'vi

If you haven't seen the teaser yet (who hasn't?), you can find it online right here. Thoughts on these ones?

Avatar is the story of an ex-Marine on the planet Pandora who, as an Avatar - a human mind in an alien body - finds himself in a desperate fight for his survival and that of the indigenous beings called Na'vi.

Avatar is both written and directed by Oscar winning visionary filmmaker James Cameron, of Piranha II, The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, True Lies, and Titanic previously. He has been developing the technology to make this movie for the last 10 years. 20th Century Fox is bringing James Cameron's Avatar to both IMAX and regular theaters in 3D around the world on December 18th.

Find more posts: First Look, Hype, Photos



What's with all the fake-looking CGI?

SlashBeast on Aug 26, 2009


Looks beautiful. So can't wait.

Will Dearborn on Aug 26, 2009


Not sure how anyone can consider any of this less than photo-realistic.

Will Dearborn on Aug 26, 2009


IT looks a lot less real because its a SCAN of a PRINT of a digital image, that will look much much better how it was INTENDED to be seen - in 3D on the silver screen. No wonder I look a lot less real when a photo of me is taken and then digitalized, then printed, then scanned, and redigitalized.

Kelley on Aug 26, 2009


What happened to James Cameron regular Michael Biehn?!

TediusTed on Aug 26, 2009


its okay. again, i know its not what the film will look like, but as far as a photo goes, its not intense.

Al on Aug 26, 2009


From a person who saw the teaser in high def AND the preview in IMAX in 3D i can honestly say that the Na'vi in action DO NOT look that good. You can make even some of the shittiest CG look good in a still photo. not saying that Avatar's CG is in any way shitty. just that it didn't look as good as even that scanned photo. and yea Alex...take a break. This isn't a big deal enough to keep pestering your readers with this.

kreig70 on Aug 26, 2009


Those look fuckin photorealistic. I don't understand the hate. Ah well. It seems people are just pissed that the aliens aren't actually aliens but blue humanoids with big eyes and thicker nose. I guess some people like the design while others not so much. James Cameron is heavily inspired by ANIME. These characters have an anime design to them.

JoJo on Aug 26, 2009


I dunno, i think i my have my excitement level too high for this. Every picture i see makes me feel sad that it drop me on the floor. I think he should do more making of videos like watchmen did. Give us some parts of the movie, in motion, the way it's supposed to be.

Dan on Aug 26, 2009


i cant wit 4 this movie its probabky gunna be 1 of my favorite movies well atleast my top ten

quez on Aug 26, 2009


I will say though, that the lips are spot on.

Dan on Aug 26, 2009


the CG looks CG. get over it Avatards.

Roib on Aug 26, 2009


You know what I cant stand when creatives design fantasy elements. They dont apply normal scientific evolution to elements and characters, they just try and make them cool looking. Sure make them cool looking but think about why each element is there, why do the navi have blue faces and why are there dots on their faces, if there is a normal evolutionary reason those are there.... like the dots confuse predators that like to eat Navi eye balls, so that is why evolution has given them that kind of features. But no... these just seem like "hey lets make cool looking alien tribe beings". It just isnt smart creativity.

Tomi on Aug 26, 2009


And why the hell do they have trendy tribal ear loops and "earth like" tribal stuff. Do you really think that out there somewhere on a distant planet, there are aliens with streched ear loops?????????????????????? WTF!!!

Tomi on Aug 26, 2009


if I am asked if I want to look like an Avatar - I will answer: never I dont like this big Manga Eyes but I am sure the kids will love them. Somehow they look in the photo like LION KING... And the soldier looks like a G.I.JOE or HE MAN doll..sorry.. action figure 🙂 but hell, its just a movie and I am sure it will have some kind of entertainment level

Millus on Aug 26, 2009


That's what I've been wondering.... Is EVERYTHING in Avatar CG? Even the humans? I had my doubts in some parts.. but for most of it.. I was completely sold it was live action.

SS on Aug 26, 2009


Looks worse than I originally thought. Wow...Ferngully live action.

Tra la la la la di da on Aug 26, 2009


They need to stop cutting corners and go back to putting people in make-up because they shit just doesn't look real... or impressive.

sean on Aug 26, 2009


Chihuahua ears? Amazing.

Jamdolin on Aug 26, 2009


everyones bitching about how it doesn't seem realistic so, watch the rewind theatre at and it'll change your mind. There's so much detail in every little thing that its amazing and it's only a teaser and there's still time for touch ups. but i guess we will all know how it comes together this winter,and im expecting it to look and be amazing.

erik on Aug 26, 2009


The CG looks CG!? GASP!!!! How could the CG possibly look like CG? 1) Part of the reason your brain is telling you that these are fake is because they are aliens. Of course it's fake. King Kong was fake, Gollum was fake, Davey Jones was fake, the tits on Playboy models are fake. We all know what real shit looks like, so anything that doesn't look like that real shit will look fake to us. 2) That doesn't change the fact that we're all able to get into the movies that have this fake crap in it. Once you see them in motion in a world and with a story to go along with it, the effects tend to melt away and we allow ourselves to see the story and the characters instead of just seeing CG. That's sorta the whole point with all special effects. To make shit that you couldn't otherwise make. I think a lot of the fuckers calling this film out for looking fake are just douchebags looking to troll shit. Yeah, it does look fake. IT IS FAKE, so no fucking shit it looks fake. I agree that I wish more filmmakers would use prosthetics or puppets or guys in suits, but the reality is that those things STILL look fake, and in most cases those effects are extremely limiting in what you can do with them. You can't have a puppet go running around a set with the same ease you can do it with a CG character, and nine times out of ten the CG character will look better. A lot of people don't realize how many films are chock full of subtle effects that you never notice. People notice the big alien robots and giant buildings being blown to bits and recognize them as being fake, no matter how well they're pulled off. I bet a lot of you never notice when they use CG to add background buildings that just sit there, or when they use it to cover up unwanted stuff in the shots (some sections of the LOTR films weren't shot too far from large cities and major effects work went into painting out buildings, adding trees to cover them, painting out power lines, replacing the entire sky, adding mountains to background shots, removing mountains from other shots... But that big elephant thing... that's fucking fake, isn't it?) Nevermind the fact that the sets also had a lot of CG enhancement going on that no one seemed to notice, and that several bits were 100% cg, and that every other shot had some major effect going on. No one really mentioned the fact there were a ton of shots that required half the cast to be resized because they were playing hobbits. @SS: No, there are live-action bits in the film. @sean: Because the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles looked SO believable back in the day. Just like the Stay Puft Man, ET and the Gremlins. Most guys in suits still look fake as hell. The only person I've seen pull off that sort of effect well is Del Toro, and his stuff is ususally CG enhanced as well. Also, I've noticed that the general consensus by the comments on this website are generally the exact opposite of correct. You all thought Transformers 2 would be great, you all thought Moon and District 9 looked dull, you all thought Heath Ledger would make a shitty Joker and now you all think this film will suck. @Tomi... There are a ton of creatures on earth that have blue all over them. There are tons of birds, insects, reptimes, some primates... all have blue on them, on their faces... Tons of them. Why? Well, maybe if you knew more about the places they inhabited or how they lived you'd understand why the NaVi were blue. You can't understand the evolution of a creature without knowing anything about their environment... that's the whole point of evolution... to adapt to the environment. No one really knows that much about Pandora, so speculating on their evolutionary processes is premature. And finally, as a lot of you numbskulls told me when I went off on the transformers films for being mindless, pointless, racist bullshit: "It's just a movie, man!!! It's not like every movie has to be some perfectly realistic thing!!!"

Squiggly_P on Aug 26, 2009


Ugh just shutup on the CG bashing if you dont like it dont read an Avatar post. Not to mention none of you have seen it the way its meant to be seen full IMAX 3d so please do the people who are actually looking forward to it and keep your pointless bitching to yourself...yes it is pointless what the fuck are you accomplishing when your just dissin something youve barely seen anything on....nothing, so shut the fuck up already. So much hate on so little information. If you walk out of the theater this December and you think its still fake then you can bitch.

Cody on Aug 26, 2009


Last image looks ok. I do wonder if what we've seen so far is all rush rendered and possibly to make it seem like we 'have' to see it in 3d to appreciate it.

Daniel Sharp on Aug 26, 2009


Squiggly_p, I couldnt have said it better myself! I fucking hate all this Avatar bashing.

Marcus on Aug 26, 2009


Amen Squiggly.... This movie is going to be insane....All these idiots are missing the forest through the trees. I think once you immerse yourself in the story you will forget what is real and what is not, and only then will you realize how beautiful and intense the imagery really is.

donmega on Aug 26, 2009


Shit, I think any gung-ho movie director has learned a golden rule after the insane hype over Avatar being "photo-realistic". #1 - The first rule of the uncanny valley is, you do not talk about the uncanny valley. #2 - The second rule of the uncanny valley is, you DO NOT talk about the uncanny valley. It's as simple as that. I think that word "photo-realistic" is thrown around way too much and that we're still at least a decade away from it, and arguably it is not even possible. I've been reading up on evolutionary psychology, and the theory is that our brains are wired so that we may see and understand things we've experienced for thousands of years: rocks, dirt, sky, trees, etc. Fantastic robots, or imaginary beings, are beyond the scope of this and we just KNOW they aren't real. This kind of stuff may NEVER look REAL to humans because it is not even remotely similar to anything on Earth.

jman571 on Aug 26, 2009


Well said Squiggly.

Will Dearborn on Aug 26, 2009


to #12 you just made my night! Thank you

rj on Aug 26, 2009


Clearly Cameron has a boner for the broad nosed cat creature, Beast, who messed with his Sarah Conner on TV enough to reflect it's design in his Navi.... am I right, or am I right folks?!!!?!?! Eh? Eh? Eh?

Voice of Reason on Aug 26, 2009


Lol people and the fake comments. It only looks fake because its so not human looking and it has blue skin. But if you look at it the lips, skin eyes etc this is beyond even the Golem effects from LOTR. I look forward to the movie and looking at little pics and trailers on the web wont really do it justice. I'm betting like titanic this will be a Sci Fi flick a lot of women will love. The only real way they could wow people with something that looks photorealistsic is if you are watching a "human" character and it looks so real you cant tell its CGI. The minute you create a monster or alien creature (especially with blue skin) no matter how good the effect the human brain will think its fake.

JimD on Aug 26, 2009


how come Sigourney's avatar has a human nose?

Christ on Aug 26, 2009


They look wonderful. The expressive eyes and faces can tell a story. Normally films have to be so restrained as to have one character CG or the film is a joke. Even then it can still be a joke. Watching the 15 minutes I can def buy this as a story. That is what they are designed for. Cant wait till december!

Mike Retter on Aug 26, 2009


kreig70 doesn't get it. This movie will be amazing. the only thing that will stop people from letting themselves be amazed is the fact that they need to be right or talk bad about a hyped film, it's in a jerks nature.

Jimbone on Aug 26, 2009


#22 and 26. What are you two mumbling about ? Aliens in Camerons movie from like 20 years ago looked as real as my dog. Same thing about the dinosaurs in Jurassic park, thats 15 years ago. Are you telling me the technology for that sort of effects and CGI doesnt exist anymore ? Aliens here looks like something from a WoW intro movie and blue paint has nothing to do with that . Rendering and movements in the the trailer look just plain bad and no silvescreen or 3D can help that (Yes Ive seen it on a big screen). Also #22 whats your god damn point ? Stunning visuals ? well if you want to see good visuals go see some Emmerich movie. The movie it self will be crap but hey if its CGI you are after then youll like it. That doesnt mean though it wont be a good flick. I still hope there is a good story to compensate for the overhyped visuals.

Shige on Aug 27, 2009


I must admit that when i saw the trailer i wasnt to sure that it was in any way photo real but it did look smart as fuck in a live painting sort of way especially the all the shots of Pandora. Now that i have seen those photos of the Na'vi all i can say is yeah In Cameron i trust (as always) cos those pics are the fuckin muts nuts, well better than gollum and they looked so much better than in the teaser...... mind you i did watch it from my pc monitor which aint goin to do it any justice.

LV 426 on Aug 27, 2009


@cody...I have How do you know who went to the screening and who hasn't. Also, ROTF was pretty good save the ghetto twins and roommate thought the twins were wporse. D9 was WAY better than I thought and I only cared Heath Ledger was joker and bring in too many annoying girls at the theater...which it did so I'm 3 for 3. Will this suck? Oh yeah... Has to e seen on 3d IMax, oh yeah, it'll suck then. Cause when the first set of people see it at a regualr theater, word will get around for the next weekend.

Tra la la la la di da on Aug 27, 2009


22 is a douche. Nbody is gonna read that.

sumonesumtime on Aug 27, 2009


Right on Shige!

Tomi on Aug 27, 2009


#36 you make no freaking sense.

Chhai on Aug 27, 2009


@37 Oh rly? Wanna bet? 😛 Anyway Avatar looks AMAZING.

Ryan on Aug 27, 2009


James Cameron of Piranha 2!! Hahaha!! That's like saying Steven Spielberg, director of "Always"... Nice touch!

Google the Oct8pus on Aug 27, 2009


...or Francis Ford Coppola, director of "Jack"... hahhaa

Google the Oct8pus on Aug 27, 2009


BTW - Sigourney Weaver looks like a blue Jodie Foster...

Google the Oct8pus on Aug 27, 2009


#22 get a life. PLEASE STOP WITH AVATAR. Not going to be as good as Iron Man, Dark Knight, or District 9.

#22 get a life on Aug 27, 2009


@ #34. First off none of the creatures in Aliens were CGI all of them were built by Stan Winston as were the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Although some of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were cg at times. Sure Cameron could have used rubber puppets for the na'vi but there are a hell of a lot of em in this movie and that would be a very difficult task. He could have used prosthetics and make up but the design of the na'vi would have caused alot of problems for approaching it this way. They are 10 feet tall. So either Cameron would have to work very hard to never include a na'vi and a human in the same shot or he would have the task of actually making actors appear 10 feet tall when compared to other actors portraying human characters. If he did it this way he would either have to find a shit ton of people who are abnormally tall with some acting experience or he would have to put actors on stilts. Imagine 20 or so actors and extras stumbling around the set on stilts. After thinking this through myself its no wonder Cameron chose to use cgi and its no wonder that he decided to wait 14 years for technology to improve to make this movie. Secondly, all you Avatar haters should just go watch District 9 over and over again since its so great. In ten years I'll come back and ask you if people still care about District 9 or if they care more about Avatar. Personally I think people are mad that Avatar might bring the kid out in them again.

Alex T. on Aug 27, 2009


Enough fucking Avatar. I'm about 2 articles away from just skipping it on principle. Seriously, was four pictures of the stupid ass "tribals" that we've already seen in the trailer worth a whole article?

Syphous on Aug 27, 2009


Yet again... Why do losers on this board keep trying to justify these aliens, they look absolutely ridiculous and like something from a computer game. Get over it, the movie may be brilliant, nobody knows yet, but the aliens look like shite. End of.

Kenco on Aug 27, 2009


And let me say one more time... Delgo sucked and so will this rip-off... This is nuts! This movie will BOMB!

Jordan on Aug 27, 2009


Hey Kenco @ 47 what exactly makes us losers for justifying the way these aliens look? Say something intelligent next time.

Alex T. on Aug 27, 2009


And please......... stop reporting on this movie, I enjoy this site but this is getting so sickening! You said you wouldn't report on it so keep your word, those pics were not worth posting, they're scanned for god's sake. Give us all a break please.

Kenco on Aug 27, 2009


#22 Thankyou! Your completely right. Of course it's gonna look fake. But the cg is still excellent. And in my opinion the movie looks very good & interesting. & I'll be seeing it on opening day.

David on Aug 27, 2009


Hey Alex T., your initial argument at 45 was non-sensical, if he had 200million+ to blow on CGI, I'm sure he could have got some f'n extras, no matter how big and stupid they're supposed to look! With 200million+ budget, you can do a whole............. lot! The problem is that its hype is bigger than Pamela Anderson's tits!! And what annoys me about the aliens is that they're supposed to look photorealistic but they look like shit. If you like how they look, that's grand, but in my opinion, they're a major disappointment for all the initial buzz. If they didn't jump the gun and brag about how great it was, we could have accepted it for what it was, a CGI driven movie like Beowulf. We're all set up for disappointment now in the sense that it won't be as world changing as they've claimed, I'm sure ill enjoy this, but not on the level they've bragged about. The aliens look stupid and are NOT photorealistic. And what are they going to do when the theatre run ends, because nobody will want to buy that dvd based on the trailer that we seen, answer that for me? Just my opinion, no offence to you.

Kenco on Aug 27, 2009


#45 So, creating huge believable monsters and creatures @Jurassic Park, LoTR and Aliens was absolutely no problem but creating humanlike aliens is a big nogo ? Call me when you believe that your self. Secondly. Nowhere did I say I am Avatar hater. The only thing you fanboys have so far is "THE stunning visuals of the century". Which simply is not true. It still could be a great movie with a nice story and polished effects (improved from the trailer), but please skip the OMG its da shitz bullshit.

Shige on Aug 27, 2009


okay here is my biggest issue with this. It is very hard to just randomly create your own sci fi universie and find it acceptable. Frankly I do not accept this, because the cgi is not good. Yes I know it's going to look fake. But Cameron KEPT TALKING about how there was no way he could use the technology 10 years ago to make it. And now look at it? It's like fucking 2005 bullshit. There has been much realer cgi to come out and this does not look that good. Another big thing is the teaser trailer was awful. The pacing, the music, the cgi once again. And these photos, the only acceptable one is the bottom right one. Frankly after seeing the first 15minuts of this film, I am just going to wait for like 3 weeks and watch it come out of theaters. Because the only people who care are huge James Cameron fanboys all the others are confusing it with The Last Airbender, which makes me laugh. So I've said my 10cents, rip it apart if you must

Movieraider321 on Aug 27, 2009


I wonder if they have sex like humans???.....thats what I wanna see

Trey on Aug 27, 2009


#52 I never said the problem was money or the problem was that it would be impossible to use extras i just said I could see why cameron would find it to be impractical based on the design of the aliens. And yes I agree it was over hyped it's the first feature film Cameron has released since 1997 of course people are overexcited. And when you think about it nowadays everything is overhyped its just all part of over advertizing everything. I'm sure you don't let hype ruin everything for you. By the way you never answered my question. What makes people defending the alien design losers? What makes you feel the need to say something like that? Are you pissed that someone is actually looking forward to something you aren't and its your way to vent? I don't call you a loser because you attack the cgi do I? I'm not offended by your opinion I'm offended by what you call people, who havent done jack shit to you.

Alex T. on Aug 27, 2009


@Shige: My point was that we know this stuff is fake. You were aware of the fact that the Aliens in "Aliens" were fake, right? They were puppets and occasionally guys in suits. We know they're fake because we are currently unaware of aliens and we know that Cameron didn't genetically engineer creatures to attack Sigourney Weaver & Co. The point was that while you're outside the film looking in, you can see that these things aren't real. The one thing the aliens had going for them was the fact that they were physical props, but look how limiting that was. All the shots of the aliens have them moving slowly or you only see a bit of them at a time, like just the head and arms or just the legs. You never really get a good look at them, and maybe that's one of the reasons they register as more 'real'... you never really get a good shot of them until towards the very end of the film. And the CG dinosaurs in Jurassic Park look fake as hell today. Also, describing these things as looking like something from a videogame is 1) not true and 2) a really degrading remark about videogames more than it is about these creatures. What the fuck are you trying to say? Videogame concept artists aren't as creative as film concept artists? Do you play games at all? It's the same sort of art. Hell, a lot of game artists do work on film as well. I don't understand really what you're trying to say with that crack. I think you hold games to some lesser standard or something, and you shouldn't. Just because it's lower poly doesn't mean they put less effort into it. The Point: Dr Manhattan was a blue CG humanoid. Most people were glad they left him blue and naked. Closer to the original story, they say. Well why is it ok for one story to have a blue naked god-like being, but it's not ok for another movie to have blue humanoid tribal people? Changing them to something else wouldn't be following Mr Cameron's original intent, would it? You don't like the things, go make your own $250 Million movie. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it and wait to see the flick before you pass judgement. For all I know this movie is going to be utter garbage. I don't know. I just find it absurd that people are going this overboard about the fact that the fucking aliens are blue. You're half blue yourself. Why is it so odd that there might be a species that's blue?

Squiggly_P on Aug 27, 2009


A good thing about a fanboy is that he is so predictable and mindless being that he focuses on some random word or phrase to try to make an argument. Makes it easy to dismiss anything he says. @56. Great call about that "go make your own movie". Thats the ultimate fanboy remark, as in "you cant do that then fuck off"...... Well, go make your own 250million dollar film before thinking someone elses work is good. How about that ? I dont have to make my own movie to say I like or dislike anything, you know it and I know it. Pointless argument. Secondly, Jurassic park and LoTR effects are till this day considered the best ever made, not only by me but by the whole lot movie crowd out there. I wont bring you any statistics or forums or polls. Go google, you can do it Im sure. In Aliens, the monsters were never fully shown, I give you that. Nevertheless, every single shot of them looked real. Whereas in this trailer every single picture, still or movement looks fake (OBSERVE, so far). Finally, for the gazillion time, I do NOT dislike the movie yet as you seem to think and I do NOT consider blue creatures being fake for the blue paint it self. Learn to read. Lastly, just FYI I do play a whole lots of games, PS3 DS, PC whatever. I do it all, so calling me clueless about the gaming world is just dumb call from your side. Also, what do Watchmen and Dr Manahattan have to do with anything since I don NOT consider the blue paint being fake it self. (see I reminded you again about the paint incase you or some fanboy make pointless argument again)

Shige on Aug 27, 2009


First off Shige, just to clear things up, your last comment should have been directed @57 not me @56. So for what its worth next time recheck what you read before you tell someone else to learn to read. Second your comment @53 "please skip the OMG its da shitz bullshit." just makes you look like a hypocrite. Why should you be allowed to post your opinion of something but someone else shouldn't? Are you tired of people having a different opinion than you, or what? If I said " please skip the OMG the cgi looks like shit." you would tell me to fuck off and you would have a right to. Overall I just don't get it. Why do people who already think that the cgi is awful click on articles like this expecting to see anything different? If you truly think that it looks like shit than why waste more of your time looking at pictures of it? As long as any image of this movie is in a 2D format its not going to look any different or better than what everyone has already seen in the trailer. I think everyone knows the famous Einstein quote: " The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Alex T. on Aug 27, 2009


Dude, Squiggley, you're a smart man. A little bit of a rant there, but well though out. I appreciate your thoughts.

Mark Drennan on Aug 27, 2009


Looks truly realistic.

Fisherr on Aug 28, 2009


#59 (Alex T) My comment was directed to #56 untill someone deleted a couple of posts. Sorry about the missunderstanding. Secondly. I did not attack anyone for thinking the CGI being good. If you read carefully I merely defended everyone who thought the CGI was bad from the instant Cameron fans who think he is Mr.Perfect. I just wish the fanboys would relax and quit attacking everything and everyone who happen to think differently. Especially when the attacks are missdirected or entirely unprovoked. As for your third comment about the Avatar articles. I look forward to this movie so clicking on avatar articles I expect to find some news about the project and not just some random rant about the instagodomfg thing this will be.

Shige on Aug 28, 2009


#59 my comment was not directed at you. It was 56 untill someone added or deleted some posts. Overall Im tired about this entire discussion as everone takes any sort of negative remark about this flick personally. Its a flamewar that one person cant win against hordes of fanboys. Yolu guys really need learn how to read before coming here throwing around pointless arguments. I hope this movie will meet your expectations.

Shige on Aug 28, 2009


@ 62 and 63. Here we go again, some flaw in comment system made my previous comment unwatchable so I posted another one. Hope admin deletes one of the two.

Shige on Aug 28, 2009


Shige my question wasn't: why did you attack people for thinking the CGI is good? My question was: what is it that makes you feel you have the right to tell people to hold their positive comments about the CGI while you should freely be allowed to post your negative comments? I never accused you of attacking anyone just of being a hypocrite. In regards to your "I just wish the fanboys would relax and quit attacking everything and everyone who happen to think differently" statement, I personally don't feel like its a fair statement to make. From what I can tell both sides are attacking each other. So if its really just peace you are after than ask everyone to stop fighting. Don't single out the group who you just assume are all James Cameron groupies. As for "I look forward to this movie so clicking on avatar articles I expect to find some news about the project and not just some random rant about the instagodomfg thing this will be". Seriously the article is called "First Look: New Avatar Na'vi PHOTOS are Worth Checking Out". PHOTOS. Lastly, stop telling people to learn how to read or need I mention the "photos" bit again.

Alex T. on Aug 28, 2009


P.S. every arguement on here is pointless. It's not like we are all debating over whether or not to put some new law into effect. If you're tired of the discussion than stop discussing.

Alex T. on Aug 28, 2009


The Na'vi look crap, big silly eyes and huge noses, its poor design, nothing to do with bad cg

Metatasian on Aug 29, 2009


The first picture of the guy still looks like the leader on "Small Soldiers!"

Kenneth on Sep 7, 2009


I've seen several clips from the movie in full HD quality and, 3-D or not, the movie looks incredible. The Na'vi are perfectly fitted in their world, (which is a fully realized planet, not just an Ice World, Forest Moon, Cloud Planet as in Star Wars) There's an eco system, a realized food chain, and a culture to the region that's shown in the film. The movements of the Aliens, the subtle gestures and facial expression are far beyond anything ever achieved. They are to Gollum as Gollum is to Jar Jar. I, personally, can't wait to see the movie. Has James Cameron ever made a bad film in his career? I can only think about every achievement he made. Every record he's broken. Everytime he makes a movie, it changes how we see them, how they're made. Many would give Spielberg or Lucus that honor, but its Cameron. Spielberg couldn't have made Jurassic Park without Cameron's Water tentacle in The Abyss. The Man's a genius. Lucas and/or Peter Jackson couldn't have made their fantasies if not for the Massing Technology that Cameron cooked up for Titanic. They may have perfected them, but the idea was his. Now with his new Polarized Cameron Technology, this should be the most hardcore 3-D film to date. He's been making this movie for 14 years. Long before it was cast, before the budget was drawn up, he was working on the science that would make this movie possible. Its a dream of his fully realized. And I can't wait to see it.

Sulli on Nov 30, 2009


I wonder how many of the people who initially ridiculed this film site unseen in this thread are now ponying up for a third trip to see it.... ; )

K. on Dec 25, 2009


70- i agree 🙂 what a bunch of idiots, ridiculing something they have no idea about. oh, and "this movie will never be as good as iron man, blah blah" so, you wishing you owned avatar on dvd now?

ju on Dec 29, 2009


#13 Tomi, dude its the same reason for why we have freckles.. They have their spots and we have our freckles... just enjoy the movie

E on Dec 30, 2009


*cough* Actually, the Pandoran forests are pretty bright at night, and Na'vi were actually nocturnal animals, that is why the blue colour, and the bioluminescent freckles are for breaking up the silhouette in nighttime. I like Avatar and the Na'vi, but I have to admit, that those eyes are too big. Look at some big cats, tigers for example, their eyes are not that big compared to their faces. They do not need to be. I could imagine the reason to the huge eyes is that people want to have big eyes. Ask any woman. Why do you wear mascara and stuff? "To make my eyes look bigger." But I think, that the Na'vi would look better with smaller eyes. But, hey, don't worry, be happy, at least they are not nekos. (Human with cat ears and tails etc.)

Lumikki on Jan 10, 2010

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram