So, the story of Avatar sounds just like Pocahontas, you say? Let me introduce you to a film that will make you Avatar haters out there appreciate it a bit more for what it's worth.
The film, Battle For Terra, directed and co-written by unknown Aristomenis Tsirbaris is a cheaper take on the box office king Avatar. Ripped from the same treatment written over 10 years ago, the one obvious thing that separates the two films is the visual aspect.
Battle For Terra was made for next to nothing - or in other words, $230 million short of what James Cameron spent to make Avatar. Without trying to compare the two films, visually, Terra looks absolutely awful. The film looked like it was created in 3DS Max. Plus, there's no excuse for the film to look like it was made in 1990, when it took a year and a half from 2007 to 2009 to re-render the film in 3D (the original film was in 2D and had been received well at the Toronto International Film Festival, so they decided to give it a 3D look).
However, I must give the film credit for production under such a minimal budget, especially with such an impressive cast - the film featured Luke Wilson, Brian Cox, Justin Long, Danny Glover, James Garner and Mark Hamill, to name a few. I wouldn't be surprised if all the money was spent on them, while the rest was used on lunch money for those responsible for the visual graphics and animation of the film, who were possibly friends, family or those doing (or returning, perhaps) a favour for the filmmakers. Another good point I liked about the film was the obvious mature aspect to the storyline. I was surprised that for a film that looked like it was made for 12-year-old kids, the film had some rather serious themes and portrayed in a mature way. I feel that it was just a pity the animation failed to reflect it.
Still, I am disappointed that even without James Cameron's latest groundbreaking 3D technology (that is meant to change the way films are made and screened), Battle For Terra has nothing to show. The script didn't impress me, and so did the directing.
I rated this 4/10.
Battle For Terra was made for next to nothing - or in other words, $230 million short of what James Cameron spent to make Avatar. Without trying to compare the two films, visually, Terra looks absolutely awful. The film looked like it was created in 3DS Max. Plus, there's no excuse for the film to look like it was made in 1990, when it took a year and a half from 2007 to 2009 to re-render the film in 3D (the original film was in 2D and had been received well at the Toronto International Film Festival, so they decided to give it a 3D look).
However, I must give the film credit for production under such a minimal budget, especially with such an impressive cast - the film featured Luke Wilson, Brian Cox, Justin Long, Danny Glover, James Garner and Mark Hamill, to name a few. I wouldn't be surprised if all the money was spent on them, while the rest was used on lunch money for those responsible for the visual graphics and animation of the film, who were possibly friends, family or those doing (or returning, perhaps) a favour for the filmmakers. Another good point I liked about the film was the obvious mature aspect to the storyline. I was surprised that for a film that looked like it was made for 12-year-old kids, the film had some rather serious themes and portrayed in a mature way. I feel that it was just a pity the animation failed to reflect it.
Still, I am disappointed that even without James Cameron's latest groundbreaking 3D technology (that is meant to change the way films are made and screened), Battle For Terra has nothing to show. The script didn't impress me, and so did the directing.
I rated this 4/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment