Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

For those interested in Avatar

Tom L said:
:eek6::eek6::eek6:

OMG. I have said it before and I will say it again: this film is going to be HUGE.
Click to expand...

At an all-in cost that is likely over $400 million, it has to be to have any degree of success.
 
Tom L said:
Oh don't worry, it will.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried. I have no stake whatsoever in its success or failure.

Personally, I still think it looks like a very elaborate video game. That will appeal to many, and will most definitely not appeal to many others. I've never been a particular fan of the whole performance capture thing, as I'm one of those who looks at it and basically comes away thinking "what's the point?" I felt that way about Polar Express, Beowulf, and would probably feel that way about Christmas Carol if I had any real interest in seeing it. Simulating human actors has its place, but I just find seeing the actual actors on screen a lot more satisfying, both visually and emotionally. There is something to be said for spectacle, but ultimately it's all CGI and every viewer knows it. That, to me, was why I didn't care about the big climactic "battles" in the last 3 Star Wars pictures, why I didn't care about any of the characters in the 2 pictures I just mentioned, why I didn't care about just about anything in the last Transformers picture, and why I likely won't care about anything in Avatar. If one is going to make a cartoon, one should make a cartoon - which is why I actually DID care about almost all the characters in, say, Shrek. Or Wall-E. Or Finding Nemo. Or any of the other projects that didn't try to be something they're not.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
 
M Most said:
I'm not worried. I have no stake whatsoever in its success or failure.

Personally, I still think it looks like a very elaborate video game. That will appeal to many, and will most definitely not appeal to many others. I've never been a particular fan of the whole performance capture thing, as I'm one of those who looks at it and basically comes away thinking "what's the point?" I felt that way about Polar Express, Beowulf, and would probably feel that way about Christmas Carol if I had any real interest in seeing it. Simulating human actors has its place, but I just find seeing the actual actors on screen a lot more satisfying, both visually and emotionally. There is something to be said for spectacle, but ultimately it's all CGI and every viewer knows it....

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Can I ask a question?

How did you feel about Gollum?

Also how did you feel about the Elephant Man - after all, that was just make up.

The psychology of what makes the 'real yet unreal' work for some and not for others is going to growingly be directors and film makers stock and trade as technological boundaries grow.

I think there is an important thing to think about here in terms of Performance capture for these movies - because the human characters are all live action, and only the characters that CAN'T be created practically (10 ft tall blue aliens with tails) are performance capture.

Now, the number of characters that you see at one time in a scene that are performance capture versus real people is possibly what splits the line between what 'feels' cgi and what is real.

A trick of illusion is to mix something that is real, and the audience knows and understands, with something that is unreal - because it confuses the brain and makes the clearly unreal thing more real.

In instances where everything is unreal, the audience simply accepts everything is such. When most things are real, but some things are unreal - the audience are more likely to accept those unreal things as real, it helps hold together the illusion, and its less work for the brain - everything else makes sense, so I'll just assimilate that odd thing as normal/acceptable rather than constantly working to keep track of it.

I think the point of Avatar is to actively push that boundary - if it has pushed it too far then maybe that's the areas where it will be deemed a failure.

But even if it is a failure - And I don't think it will be - it will be a spectacular failure that will be looked back upon as a crazily ambitious achievement - the sort that progresses technology - and even failures of that nature, are in my mind, a good thing.
 
Because Pandora is so vibrantly colored, people seem to deem it a video game. They could have easily darkened the shots and color graded differently if they wanted to really make the audience think it was live action, but they didn't.

The most remarkable thing about Avatar that I saw in Imax 3D is that you get such a dreamlike feeling where it is almost too outlandish, too lush and colorful to be real, but you're really there. The detail in everything is there, the closeups on the characters faces had me believe that they were just wearing makeup.

I've never seen a film before where conceptually everything is so unreal and actually sit there and believe it. It definitely doesn't come off as that by watching a youtube trailer, which is why I think they went and launched Avatar day. You have to see full scenes on the big screen in 3D to get what is special about this film.
 
Craig Parkes said:
Can I ask a question?

How did you feel about Gollum?
Click to expand...

Very different situation, for a number of reasons. As you mention, in LOTR, the human characters are all live action and only the characters that cannot be created practically are CG (i.e., Gollum). The Gollum character worked for me both because of the presence of real humans (and not simulations of those humans), its placement in a "real" setting (for the most part, anyway), and because the animation was well acted (in much the same way as Cameron's elaborate performance capture, but more primitive), well tuned, and a lot of care was taken to ensure proper interaction with the live characters. The characters in "Beowulf" did not work for me because they were simulations of humans, not the humans themselves, living in a completely CG world. And, to me, kind of creepy as a result. Avatar's characters are neither. For the most part (as far as I can tell, and except for the lab scenes) these characters exist only in the Pandora environment, which is entirely CG as well. It is those scenes - which likely make up the bulk of the picture - that I'm basing my comments on. And although, as you say, enough exposure to that environment might lead to a suspension of disbelief that might make it more palatable and real, I'm not counting on it because in many ways, it looks more like the world of Shrek to me than it does any live action photograph. But I'm not going to comment any further until the picture is shown and I've seen it. Then I can much better gauge my reaction to it. Any more prior to that is conjecture based on past experience. And I'm not necessarily expecting this to be like any particular past experience.
 
That's pretty close to my thinking two, that if there was more 'sets' or real world scenery the initial impact would be less.

One thing I have noticed about the 'look like a video game' comments is that probably a LOT of people were viewing the Quicktime in incorrect colour space/poorly calibrated computer monitors. You take any CG work, and view it with the wrong gamma, and it's OBVIOUSLY wrong, nothing holds up.

Once I viewed the Quicktime trailer on a properly calibrated monitor - it held up WAY better in 2D (I also saw the Avatar Day footage and I thought that looked pretty amazing as well.)

If you make something blue, and want people to believe it's 'alive', it's gotta be exactly the right kind of blue. Viewing Avatar footage in poor conditions makes an insane difference in terms of its impact. (I'm sure you appreciate this more than anyone Mike, and at the same time I'm sure you'd be pickier than most about colour reproduction...)
 
was not impressed on the mac as much as I was in the imax 3d theater.

I am going to see it.

I am very happy to see a director be so involved with his movie. It's refreshing.

I'm tired of seeing some old brand name dug up thrown on a generic script and pimped out for a buck. I hope that goes away quickly.

Good luck, Mr. Cameron. :emote_popcorn:
 
I like Cameron's way of thinking and its bringing continue challenges and fresh ideas to the table, yes I do love cartoons as cartoons, and 3D animation as 3D animation, loved the interaction of CGI in LOTR and other films, and I do like what Cameron has done here as well, to me I don't compare this to that or the other, is just simply a new way of making movies, and as technology, and money allows it, we will see more and more, and it is simply great for entertainment.

Does it look more like a video game then a movie, I don't agree, the amount of detail and the achievement in the facial expressions and following of every movement known to the Human eye is very entertaining to see, and very different from some of the forced movements seen in 3D animation.

This is a fantastic new world brought to life, and I salute Cameron for his work, how will the public react to it? I think very positively.

Human actors play their roles, as well as animation and CGI in this entertainment world, which is vast and needs to get even more vast as to continue to entertain and bring fresh material and ways of telling a story to the screen.
 
Some reason...those humans in that film...I know their fake...but some glimpses of the footage makes them look pretty damn life like!if not..completely 100% real!!
 
My only thought is that Camerons facial expressions technique on the blue skinned aliens may have worked too well.
They look so human that they don't look alien anymore.
 
Here's my take, from someone who's seen a lot more of the film than what's been shown in theaters or the internet...

This film will be revolutionary and worth a viewing by anybody who loves movies, that much about it is certain. Cameron's ideas are always fresh and he's really into exploiting technology to serve the story, and then, he's always been very careful in not overdoing it so the spectacle overpowers the credibility needed to connect with the story and its characters. The universe of the Terminator had its rules, the Terminators could be and were destroyed, and certain things were possible while others weren't. Likewise, in Titanic, there are no overtly impossible camera angles or shots, ala Michael Bay, so you're willing to invest on the story because somehow the film is shot much the same way you would have filmed it if the actual ship was used. But I think this time around, certain things may have gotten away from Jim, however impossible that notion may seem. For those who don't know, Cameron is ALWAYS in control of EVERY aspect of a film and there is absolutely NOTHING that makes it to the screen without his careful scrutiny, revisions and ultimate approval. But this film has an overpowering sense of cutting edge movie making technology embedded into it and it shows in every scene. So he must be ok with it. But you will be overwhelmed more than dazzled with the spectacle created for your viewing pleasure, which is really overpowering at times. Even if the world of Pandora were real and this is how things really looked there, and why not?; the visual bombardment is really overwhelming.

Is that bad? Not necessarily but it might give the CGI haters (and I say this with respect and understanding of their arguments) enough fuel not to connect with the film and this is a very genuine argument. Then, those who appreciate eye candy of the finest form are in for a treat. Now, the story is simple and effective, a man in need of redemption that must change allegiances and transform himself and transcend his humanity, literally, to find such redemption. There are very effective moments in the film where you'll be moved to tears or the "shiny red eye" in their absence, and the finale is uplifting and satisfactorily definitive. So there is a balance between technology and story, which is more than most effects-dependent movies can say of late, but this balance might not be enough for some people. That said, the effects are there to serve the story, not in the moronic, incredibly annoying, show off for no good reason, way of Transformers, but they are there in force. But I have to say that even those who will not connect with the concept will take something from the film and appreciate certain things from it. Certain scenes are very lyrical and both, beautifully simple and simply beautiful, while others do indeed look like elaborate video games.

Lastly, I recommend digital 3D over IMAX, as the former is sharper and the format the film was shot on, while the latter shows some of the imperfections of digital capture (Sony F950 cameras) and the square screen does not do justice to the panoramic vistas.
 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and perspective, Rudi.

You do make a good point about digital 3D vs IMAX.
 
Thanks for the info Rudi.

Do you think average movie goers will be able to enjoy it? With mcdonalds toys and everything coming up it seems like the target audience is going to be pretty broad. Fox is definitely trying to reach past sci-fi fans.
 
Oh, no problem there, the broad audiences will like it, especially the video game crazed youngsters, which is bad for me, because I hate sharing a screening room with them since they don't stop talking in loud voice, screaming at the screen and telling their bros and hoes that they be at the movies right now on their cell phones...But no, I think that both Cameron and Fox are really shooting for the demographic group between 8 and 80 years of age...
 
Rudi, you just need to crack a few skulls and the youngsters will pipe down. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top