Avatar - Only seen the trailer, but...

It's unfair to judge it from trailers, I love the art of CG but despise its almost criminal overuse and it's frequent band-aid application to fix lazy film making. But Avatar is something different, it's a unique animal. Cameron set out to create a whole new, totally implausible world of fantasy and adventure, and he succeeds. Personally, I hate films that drop a few actors in front of green screen and say "there you go, special effects me a movie." But Avatar is different, the story makes the VFX relevant and the VFX really truly are on another level. I have never been drawn into a CG performance before, never cared about Gollum or Davey Jones, I thought they were technically wonderful but I never connected with the characters. In Avatar I did, if you have any inclination to see it, do so.

I couldn't AGREE MORE, and I find it amusing that most people who like this movie are either 'into' digital animation and are impressed by the mere bitmap texture of the closeups, or like so many people I've talked to, feel that if it wasn't for being masked in 3D that Avatar would've sucked big time. Either way, neither of those opinions have to do with liking Avatar based on the STORY which I feel is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of a good film.

What really confuses me though, is how Jurrasic Park came out some 16 years ago and yet I personally think the animation was 100 times better than Avatar. What do you think is up with that?

What do you mean animation? You mean the quality of the final VFX?

What do you think I mean? Digital animation...computer generated purple people animated to run around then cut and pasted in front of a filmed background. I would've rather have just seen actual people with makeup. It would've looked so much better. What about Jurassic Park? You still haven't commented on that question.

No need to get snide, you're the one who confused the terms. In regards to Jurassic Park, I adore that film and the pioneering VFX that went with it. What is it now? 17 years since that film came out and that scene with the T-Rex chasing the jeep and smashing through the low branch still looks perfect. But, Avatar and Jurassic Park are apples and oranges. They're both cutting edge effects driven films but on two totally different levels. Jurassic Park used a combination of practical and digital effects to enhance the story whereas Avatar used the visuals to sell the story. But the difference in opinion between someone like myself and you is that I admire the justification for the digital effects whilst you resent it, sure you could have used a practical make-up effect for the Na'vi but then you'd have to change the design to better suite a humans face or use animatronics for the exagerated facial shapes, and let's be honest, that would look crap. I don't see the need to battle the two films off against each other, I love them both, but for very different reasons.