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 :)

"I just saw Avatar" Thread

Roger Crouse said:
I am considering taking my 8 year old son to see it. But, I'm wondering if it would be too much to deal with at his age. He just got his first "real" camcorder and has been shooting everything non-stop for several days. I'd like to share this experience with him if there isn't too much bad stuff for kids. I think he has a passion and interest in story telling and technology. What do those of you who have already seen it think? Is 8 too young for this one?
Click to expand...

Dear good Lord, get him to a 3D screening post haste! It's going to rock his world!

Okay, now putting the sensible adult hat on: Some scenes get intense and people say "shit" about 4 times. However, if you're concerned that alien wild life chases or bad guys putting our heroes in danger will be too visceral and traumatising for your 8 year old I wouldn't worry that much. If you'd let your kids watch Empire Strikes Back or Revenge of the Sith then they shouldn't have a problem with the beasties and the bad men doing bad things...

Saying that I watched the Terminator when I was 5 and Aliens when I was 10 and I turned out fine...if you count being obsessed with "state of the badass art" space marines and unkillable alien monsters and thus becoming a filmmaker fine...
 
I saw the movie, it felt like a really expensive update of the 1992 cartoon movie FernGully: The Last Rainforest(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/). The CG was great, 3D was good, however i thought the 3D was not as creatively used in this movie. Plot was predictable to a strong degree. The major issue was the timeliness of the films statements on politics, it's dated a little bit in that regards. It's political statements really distracted from the movie. Also, If another movie ever gets made where "Sam Worthington" Is told he has a strong heart I think the world may just end, I almost started laughing after they said that so point blank, check Terminator if you don't know what I'm talking about. Anyway fun movie, good movie, but not great. Star Trek still by far the best movie of the year.

Also, the danger element, with so much CG, people never feel in peril at least thats the feeling it causes me.
 
Darren Orange said:
I saw the movie, it felt like a really expensive update of the 1992 cartoon movie FernGully: The Last Rainforest(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104254/). The CG was great, 3D was good, however i thought the 3D was not as creatively used in this movie. Plot was predictable to a strong degree. The major issue was the timeliness of the films statements on politics, it's dated a little bit in that regards. It's political statements really distracted from the movie. Also, If another movie ever gets made where "Sam Worthington" Is told he has a strong heart I think the world may just end, I almost started laughing after they said that so point blank, check Terminator if you don't know what I'm talking about. Anyway fun movie, good movie, but not great. Star Trek still by far the best movie of the year.

Also, the danger element, with so much CG, people never feel in peril at least thats the feeling it causes me.
Click to expand...

It's almost guaranteed that Sam Worthington will be told he ahs a strong heart in Clash of the Titans.
 
Roger Crouse said:
I am considering taking my 8 year old son to see it. But, I'm wondering if it would be too much to deal with at his age. He just got his first "real" camcorder and has been shooting everything non-stop for several days. I'd like to share this experience with him if there isn't too much bad stuff for kids. I think he has a passion and interest in story telling and technology. What do those of you who have already seen it think? Is 8 too young for this one?
Click to expand...

No bad stuff for 8 year olds, very healthy message in the movie.

If your son possesses the passion for storytelling and technology this movie may very well be "that special moment" for him.
 
Tom L said:
The film feels to be of a magnitude maybe similar to The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars. A big, big film that will go down in history as some kind of important landmark. The possibilities with all of this are endless. The technology here is stunning... stunning. And it's in the service of something beautiful. Imagine if someone turned Terrence Malick loose in the middle of a huge James Cameron film, with the whole thing being digitally drawn with crystal clarity in three dimensions by the brain of Hayao Miyazaki...
Click to expand...

I agree with everything except for the fact that it's going to be of a magnitude of The Wizard of Oz or Star Wars. The big difference I think between this movie and Star Wars or Wizard or Terminator is that I might watch this movie three or four times in theater and then probably won't really want to watch it again. It's so much an experience that I don't know that I will really care beyond technical curiosity after a few watching and particularly in 2D on a small screen. And while the pandoran environment was wild and beautiful it's not necessarily a world I really am on the edge of my seat to see again in another film.

It's undoubtedly a landmark but I think its re-watchability will hinder its historical tail.
 
This was a fairy tale, if you didn't get that ten minutes into and were expecting a complicated plot, then well, I think that's your bad... To my great surprise and astonishment, they had supernatural or mystic things in there that were semi-explained by science... and yet it didn't turn out to be some horribly stupid crap as it almost inevitably does (I'm looking your way, midi-chlorians).

Story is simple and predictable, but it just works. Some bits in the plot are somewhat hard to swallow, but there's nothing seriously wrong with anything.

As an experience, though, this is really something else. 3D is not used as a gimmick; the film is not a 3D technology showcase. 3D provides immersion: into Pandora, into the visuals, into the story. If you question the use of 3D, you may just as well question the use of color and sound? If Metropolis didn't need either of these, why use them? Well, because they add value. They tell the story better. They get you more involved.

And if there ever was a film which needed a lot of immersion, then it's this one about waking up in a sleek blue alien body on a magic alien planet... 3D is quite necessary there. And it works. It more than works. This is something really extraordinary.
 
András Puiz said:
This was a fairy tale, if you didn't get that ten minutes into and were expecting a complicated plot, then well, I think that's your bad... To my great surprise and astonishment, they had supernatural or mystic things in there that were semi-explained by science... and yet it didn't turn out to be some horribly stupid crap as it almost inevitably does (I'm looking your way, midi-chlorians).

Story is simple and predictable, but it just works. Some bits in the plot are somewhat hard to swallow, but there's nothing seriously wrong with anything.

As an experience, though, this is really something else. 3D is not used as a gimmick; the film is not a 3D technology showcase. 3D provides immersion: into Pandora, into the visuals, into the story. If you question the use of 3D, you may just as well question the use of color and sound? If Metropolis didn't need either of these, why use them? Well, because they add value. They tell the story better. They get you more involved.

And if there ever was a film which needed a lot of immersion, then it's this one about waking up in a sleek blue alien body on a magic alien planet... 3D is quite necessary there. And it works. It more than works. This is something really extraordinary.
Click to expand...

I've heard quite a few people say that they were suerprised at how subtle the stereography was in the movie and I agree with them.

Making it my business to watch every 3D movie I can the first shot threw me off. Even my first thought was "Is that it?" I enjoyed how the shots kept showing more and the stereo effect seemed to increase until after Jake is taken out of stasis. I felt like I was having an acid flashback to a parabolic flight shoot I was on. Gripping stuff. Not gimmicky in the slightest.
 
One of the best theatre experiences I've ever had! I was quite skeptical going in about believing the mix of CG characters and live action characters. Like when Neo becomes CG Neo in Matrix 2 in the fight scene with 100 agent Smith's. At a certain point you just don't believe it and disregard it. This was not like that for me. I thought the articulate facial expressions were done quite well and allowed me to bridge that gap. For that alone is a huge undertaking and accomplishment IMO.
The only thing I was really dissapointed with was that I couldn't see it again, (being 3am). I agree, wasn't my favorite story ever told but it visually grabbed me in a way that I didn't want to end. Congrats to James Cameron and team for making an absolutely amazing film!
 
mikeburton said:
The only thing I was really dissapointed with was that I couldn't see it again, (being 3am).
Click to expand...

Hehe. The 3AM line at our IMAX was only about 40 people long. It briefly crossed my mind. :)
 
I'm just not sold on Avatar - what is this "revolutionary technology" everyone keeps spouting about? It's live action and motion-capture CGI together? It's 3D? So what? I don't get it.
 
Zach Nelson said:
I'm just not sold on Avatar - what is this "revolutionary technology" everyone keeps spouting about? It's live action and motion-capture CGI together? It's 3D? So what? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

It's the combination and execution of several things.

Best stereoscopic work to date for a theatrical feature, combined with best facial motion capture work to date on a feature, combined with the most impressive 3D environment to date on a feature (bar none - the world of Pandora is the true star) combined with a director who figured out how to merge it all pretty seamlessly so it never feels like actors where acting against tennis balls or that the director couldn't imagine the CG on the day and a disparate group of people had to fill in the blanks.

It 'feels' like Cameron and crew went to Pandora and shot this movie - it's got this immersive quality that nothing before has.

The movie isn't a triumph of storytelling and script writing- but neither was the Matrix. But like the Matrix 10 years ago, it pushes the envelope of film making technology so far beyond what we have previously seen, and does so seamlessly, that you can't help but sit back and stare, jaw slack.

(The Matrix is a very good companion piece to this movie for a lot of ways, they are 10 years apart, they both will probably define what people will attempt to do in action movies for the first 5 years of the next decade, and they both are kind of unexpected to the mainstream audience)

Like the Matrix - in terms of a viewing experience - no one can tell you what Avatar is - you have to see it for yourself.

If you can't 'see' the 3D (stereoscopic blindness, or alternatively it just doesn't work for your brain, doesn't immerse you in Pandora) then you won't get the love. But I felt like I got to visit another world, and I can't wait to go back.
 
Thanks, it sounds cool - I'll see it :)

I think some people are just suffering from the over-hyped marketing machine. They keep saying "ground-breaking technology" and I think to myself, the motion capture they're using isn't that new, ie. Sid the Science Kid.
 
Zach Nelson said:
Thanks, it sounds cool - I'll see it :)

I think some people are just suffering from the over-hyped marketing machine. They keep saying "ground-breaking technology" and I think to myself, the motion capture they're using isn't that new, ie. Sid the Science Kid.
Click to expand...

No and Benjamin Button arguably did it better. Any shot from Avatar has probably been done as well before. But not in stereo and not an ENTIRE FILM.

That's what's just mind blowing is that most of the movie is an 'animated' film.

Previously you might have a movie with one or two CG characters ala Gollum. You might have a peripheral race of alien creatures. But Avatar goes ape shit crazy and makes an entire photo-real animated film. And it works! That's what's so incredible. It works so well it seems normal.

The significance of that can't be understated. It's been clear for a decade that in the future we would be able to shoot an entire film on the computer. We've seen a few dabblings in that regard with Beowulf etc. But Avatar is the first where everything comes together and is virtually seamless. It's proof of the often stated postulate "anything is possible with CG now".

Just think. If they wanted to they could theoretically re-release avatar in 5 years in 8k 3D at 60fps. It's all data now. Some of the matte paintings would need to be redone and I'm sure there is a lot of paint and roto that would also need to be redone but by and large they could return to Pandora and re-render huge portions of the film.
 
To me it was like a cross between Terrance Malick's "New World" and a collage of all of James Cameron's movies.

It was lovely. Will be just as viewable on a non-3D screen.
 
Malick and Cameron explored some of the same ideas. Malick did it with very, very simple cinema technology that more or less could have been shot 50 years ago. Cameron went 180 degrees in the other direction obviously! But in some ways they arrived at the same place.

The influence of Miyazaki cannot be overlooked either--especially Nausicaa.
 
Two simple points sum it up for me:

1. I never felt like I was watching an animated, 3D or effects film. I was blissfully immersed.

2. It was the first time I didn't want a 150 minute movie to end. I'm usually glancing at my watch for the last third. Would have happily sat there another two hours!
 
The Malick/Cameron/Miyazaki combination is very accurate. Watched it for a second time tonight with my parents who're visiting and my brother. They thanked me for it. It was their first 3D movie :)

I'm truly envious of my friends who worked on it. Makes me want to step up my VFX work and go join one of the big post houses here in London...and shoot in stereo. I always thought that stereo would trickle down to the indie/low budget/young shooter quite a bit of time after it became mainstream in hollywood.

I have a feeling that it's going to be sooner rather than later. I just hope that RED put the pedal to the metal regarding their 3D rig. Can't wait to buy 2 2/3" brains and shoot stereo. Finishing a music video I shot on the RED right now. Once I got back from Avatar the second time I started rigging the AE comps with virtual stereo cameras and rendering the results as anaglyphic images just for kicks.

I hope Adobe get their asses in gear and offer end to end stereo workflow and integrate it the way they do it so well throughout the Creative Suite range. I feel that it's too much to ask for CS5 as the big change seems to be 64 bit nativity but a man can dream...

I used to walk out of movies that I found visually arresting with a new found appreciation for lighting and composition in the world around me and how I could manipulate it. This is the first movie that I walked out of one and felt how pronounced and nuanced my depth perception was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top