Having worked with fonts a lot, this choice is like building an awesome 12 room mansion and then choosing that shitty 1/8" wood paneling to put up in every room. Sure, most people will not notice... I'm worried it will take me out of the movie.

It's like Die Hard 2 where every other plot detail was ludicrous if you had any flight training. Sure, most people are not pilots or prospective pilots...

Yep, I commented to my husband on the following:

1. Unobtanium. Mostly to laugh, because it was a Professor's favorite example element in college.
2. Papyrus. I am not a font snob (okay perhaps a very small one) but that was waaay jarring.
3. Ai'Wa is just too close to Gaia. Quit clobbering me over the head, already.
4. Isn't it cool that the whole planet standardized on a single interface definition. :lol:

I just don't see the problem. The font is supposed to look rustic. How is that jarring?

Chris Costello, who designed the font in 1983:

"I have mixed feelings. At first it was cool to see it in a few spots, especially CD cover designs and movie credits… then television, billboards etc. It started cropping up in the late '80s in National Geographic articles and a few magazine ads. My parents came back from Europe one year and showed me all of the brochures they found using Papyrus. But then I started seeing it in homespun newsletters, local bulletin boards, everybody's business cards, real estate and mortgage ads...basically everywhere. It had become diluted and lost its original appeal. I see design blogs trash it all the time, but it's not a design issue. I think after she was released with OSX system fonts, her design career was finished… she became the font for the masses.

"Today, it is so overused, I would not use it unless there was some very unique application that called for it."

For the movie title, it doesn't bother me so much. But for the subtitles, which (I am told) are used liberally throughout the movie? That was a terrible idea. Subtitles are supposed to be unobtrusive, not artsy.

didn't notice the font at all. With so much other stuff to look at, the font used is very minor. Besides, I think it matches the spirit of the other visuals. As far as the designer of the font goes, can you say, sour grapes?

Was talking to others who have seen the movie a few times today at lunch. They pointed out that the avatars (the humans) actually looked different that the native Na'vi; e.g., the number of fingers and eyebrows, etc. I'll have to watch for that the next time I see it.

It's not that its rusticity is out of place.... The problem is that it is very easily recognizable AND very stylized. If they had picked say, helvetica or TNR no one would have noticed.

It's precisely because it's so 'rustic' and so readily available that every third-grader has used it on their history project on King Tut and thought how cool it looked. It seems... amateur-ish, and popped some folks who have worked in graphic arts out of 'the moment' every time the words were on the screen. [/rant]

Just call me Mr. Oblivious. I don't remember seeing it before. :blush:

I didn't know Papyrus was "uncool" until Undertoad alpha-geeked me over my home birthday invitations. At that time I had honestly just scrolled through the fonts until I saw one that fit what I was going for.

That being said, I sympathize completely with anything which takes the viewer out of the moment. To fail to take this into account (in a major production, no less) is inexcusable so far as it somewhat ruins the experience for at least that one viewer (or group of specialized viewers).

I think it is hysterical that hundreds of design geeks are going to sit around and bash an element choice in a film that has already made over a billion dollars. Geez, Mr Cameron, what were you thinking?

As with all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, Avatar was a hell of an accomplishment, and the fact that it is *still* selling out IMAX 3D theater showings is a pretty strong testimony to the fact that a large number of other folks think so, too.

99% of the people posting in that blog aren't going to earn 1/10000 of 1% of what this film will earn in their entire lifetimes as professional designers, instead realizing most of their incomes from jobs wherein the words "would you like to see our specials tonight" are required. Their artistic opinions are as valid as, say, mine, but I think Mr Cameron's earnings acumen has them all beat by a considerable margin.

Incidentally, I plan to never see this film. I will not have it crammed down my throat by media hype. They convinced me not to see it. Ever.

I felt the same way about Titanic, but enjoyed the movie very much when I allowed myself to relax.

I feel the same way about Netflix everytime I see one of those goddamn popups. Fuck off and die, Netflix.

But Avatar is worth it.

I think you should just go to prove us bleating sheep wrong.

So the advertising is affecting you. Negatively, but you're still letting it affect you.

Well yeah, Spiderman saved the city, but he had a run in his tights... how plebecian.

Function, writing is supposed to be read, convey information.:p