or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Avatar (same thread new title)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Avatar (same thread new title) - Page 2

post #31 of 3536
i just dont understand the people who dont find this trailer groundbraking.

what we see here is a trailer in 2D. now please tell me have you ever seen anything like this in 2D? now imagine the world in 3D. i bet it will look absolutely incredible. the whole world lives. you can already see in the action movie scenes how much detail is in them. it is like watching a miyasaki movie CGI animated.

what this movie reminds me of. is how the comic storm would be CGI animated. and i cant wait to see it.

i just wonder what kind of movie CGI animated looks better then this? as said above i dont know any computergame that has such incredible CGI as this. and this is only 2D.
post #32 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3code View Post

i just dont understand the people who dont find this trailer groundbraking.

An advancement, yes. Groundbreaking? Not to me. My opinion only. Also, the argument for how it will look in 3D is kind of moot since that's such a small portion of how this movie will be seen. The 2D representation is what's most important, and to me it just doesn't look like a HUGE step up from "yesterday's" CGI.
post #33 of 3536
Wow, the cynicism is thick in here! It really doesn't matter if the CGI makes you jizz in your pants....or not. When it comes to the success or failure of this movie, it's all about a universally compelling story in a fully realized -out-of-this- world. If Cameron has managed to successfully integrate those two objectives, and the CGI is no better than what we saw in LOTR, I'll be ecstatic. However, I daresay the CGI will be better than LOTR, and given the amount of highly engaging entertainment I've been provided by this director, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt, unless and until he disappoints me.
post #34 of 3536
The CGI looks very nice though there are two things that bug me based on what I saw in the trailer.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I can understand the desire to push the exoticism of an alien planet but even on alien planet I doubt there would be islands floating around in the air. Also having the futuristic helicopters shooting at the flying lizards with manual guns is rather laughable. Since this is supposed to take place in the distant future I would expect the guns to be automated and they should be shooting those flying lizards out of the sky with ease. Based solely on the aerial battle seen in the trailer it looks like a very primitive civilization is able to effectively fight against a very advanced civilization. That might make for a more dynamic story but it also makes the story harder to believe.
post #35 of 3536
M. Night's new live-action movie has a similar title, Avatar: The Last Airbender, based on the CartoonNetwork series. That's what I thought this thread was initially about.

Anyway, this looks very interesting; I'm in....
post #36 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The CGI looks very nice though there are two things that bug me based on what I saw in the trailer.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I can understand the desire to push the exoticism of an alien planet but even on alien planet I doubt there would be islands floating around in the air. Also having the futuristic helicopters shooting at the flying lizards with manual guns is rather laughable. Since this is supposed to take place in the distant future I would expect the guns to be automated and they should be shooting those flying lizards out of the sky with ease. Based solely on the aerial battle seen in the trailer it looks like a very primitive civilization is able to effectively fight against a very advanced civilization. That might make for a more dynamic story but it also makes the story harder to believe.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
So I guess you had trouble suspending disbelief while watching "Aliens."
speaking of "Aliens," the only automated weaponry employed conventional machine guns, which proved highly ineffective.
post #37 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The CG certainly looks better rendered and textured than any video game. However, the design aesthetic of the movie very much reminds me of countless generic Fantasy RPG games. You could easily retitle it "Kingdom of the Blue Dragon Riders" or somesuch. I feel like I'm going to have to worry about building up Experience points and saving tokens for that special +4 strength magic potion.

It's not thrilling me so far, but I'll give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgment.

Yeah, it does remind me of an RPG game too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

Wow, the cynicism is thick in here! It really doesn't matter if the CGI makes you jizz in your pants....or not. When it comes to the success or failure of this movie, it's all about a universally compelling story in a fully realized -out-of-this- world. If Cameron has managed to successfully integrate those two objectives, and the CGI is no better than what we saw in LOTR, I'll be ecstatic. However, I daresay the CGI will be better than LOTR, and given the amount of highly engaging entertainment I've been provided by this director, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt, unless and until he disappoints me.

All caveats aside, I agree with you and Josh and will give Cameron a chance to "wow" me....again.
post #38 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

Wow, the cynicism is thick in here! It really doesn't matter if the CGI makes you jizz in your pants....or not. When it comes to the success or failure of this movie, it's all about a universally compelling story in a fully realized -out-of-this- world. If Cameron has managed to successfully integrate those two objectives, and the CGI is no better than what we saw in LOTR, I'll be ecstatic. However, I daresay the CGI will be better than LOTR, and given the amount of highly engaging entertainment I've been provided by this director, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt, unless and until he disappoints me.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with what you've said. Certainly not me. That's been my point on other forums. A movie is nothing without a good story. However, my comment above is simply my rebuttal against the people who bring up the arrival of Jesus with the CGI in this movie. It's just not that much more impressive than things we already see.
post #39 of 3536
The trailer looks good, but I'm not going to watch a cartoon. So the CGI better be amazingly realistic if I'm supposed to care for the characters, otherwise, I'll be watching just another great CGI film trying to look as good as live action actors, without quite succeeding... Don't get me wrong, I'm eagerly waiting to see Avatar, but I just hope I won't be disappointed.

The most realistic CGI I've ever seen, to this day, is still the robots in Transformers. Now don't start about the movie itself, that's not the point. I'm just talking about the visuals. Even in the first one, this is just breathtaking; ILM does surpass themselves with those robots. But then again, they're robots. In Avatar (and in a lot of other movies actually), whether they're human or not, CGI characters are supposed to be "organic", and there's one thing CGI will never do anything about, it's our simple knowledge that some characters are just not real. The problem is that we're supposed to believe they're living in "a real world". But we know they're not, so we can never connect ot them, to their "feelings". As "beautiful" as Gollum was, we could never forget that he was not "there" with Frodo and the actors. And that's why I'm still being moved by a Pixar movie, nothing "has" to look real, yet the emotion is there.

So in short, that's why I'm worried about Avatar, but for now, let's be confident.
post #40 of 3536
Damn......this looks awesome!
post #41 of 3536
Morpheo - Agreed about Transformers CGI.

Toe - No doubts it looks awesome. I just want it to have a good plot/story.
post #42 of 3536
Transformers is hands down the best CGI work i have ever seen. But robots and aliens are two different things. Living creatures are insanely difficult to pull off with CGI.

Still, if anyone can make this work, it is James Cameron. I have liked or loved every film he has made (not including Piranaha II The Spawning, of course ).
post #43 of 3536
Here I thought this thread was about the M. Knight movie, but I guess that's The Last Airbender. D'oh!

Just watched the trailer. Not much to add other than what others has said. Looks like a couple notches (animation-wise) above the FF movie, but it didn't really impress me story-wise.

Still, I don't want to underestimate Mr. Cameron.
post #44 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

M. Night's new live-action movie has a similar title, Avatar: The Last Airbender, based on the CartoonNetwork series. That's what I thought this thread was initially about.

Shymalan's movie has been retitled to just "The Last Airbender" to avoid market confusion.
post #45 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by rto View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
So I guess you had trouble suspending disbelief while watching "Aliens."
speaking of "Aliens," the only automated weaponry employed conventional machine guns, which proved highly ineffective.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Usually I can suspend disbelief when watching a movie but those two things just struck me as a bit hard to believe. Even for a fantasy game floating islands are somewhat cliche but for a science fiction movie it just comes off as trying way to hard to make the alien planet exotic. As for the automated guns in "Aliens" from what I remember they worked well, even with limited ammo, and the aliens retreated in order to attack using a different route. I can understand why James Cameron would not want a one sided fight in Avatar but considering that there are automated guns being used today that can hit a target from over 2 miles away it just comes off as retro-futuristic to see a science fiction movie where soldiers are shooting manual guns out of a open sided helicopter on an alien planet.
post #46 of 3536
Tonight I saw the 16 minutes of footage in 3D in my local Imax. For me I will definitely see the movie but I feel the jury is still out on how this will fare. The biggest problem is that the "photo realism" of the CG was so hyped that it didn't live up to the expectations I had. Throughout the whole preview I always had the feeling I was watching CG. Almost like a Disney movie on steroids. I think the problem is that the alien world Pandora is just that, so alien that we can't really comprehend that these scenes are photo realistic because the world is so foreign it doesn't seem real. I am a huge Cameron fan but right now I am a little scared of how this might turn out. But for those that have seen the trailer, the 3D footage blows it away. I don't think they should have even had a trailer imho, should have just let the buzz generate from tonights "Avatar Day" previews. Still, during most of the footage it felt like a high tech CG cartoon....but I am still optomistic Cameron can come through. We will see come December.
post #47 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindseybp View Post

Tonight I saw the 16 minutes of footage in 3D in my local Imax. For me I will definitely see the movie but I feel the jury is still out on how this will fare. The biggest problem is that the "photo realism" of the CG was so hyped that it didn't live up to the expectations I had. Throughout the whole preview I always had the feeling I was watching CG. Almost like a Disney movie on steroids. I think the problem is that the alien world Pandora is just that, so alien that we can't really comprehend that these scenes are photo realistic because the world is so foreign it doesn't seem real. I am a huge Cameron fan but right now I am a little scared of how this might turn out. But for those that have seen the trailer, the 3D footage blows it away. I don't think they should have even had a trailer imho, should have just let the buzz generate from tonights "Avatar Day" previews. Still, during most of the footage it felt like a high tech CG cartoon....but I am still optomistic Cameron can come through. We will see come December.

Thanks for your input. I'm optimistic as well, but still need some proof before I'm convinced that we're actually in for a good movie here. CGI means nothing to me.
post #48 of 3536
^^^ That's where I'm at right now too. Here is hoping.......
post #49 of 3536
Me three. Looks excellent, but the some of the "fantasy" things depicted are low on my interest list, it would have to be a very good story for me to really like it.

larry
post #50 of 3536
I'd like to remind everybody that James Cameron has pushed the envelope before with his photographic techniques. For example, the computer animation software used to realize the T1000 liquid metal robot in Terminator 2: Judgement Day was unprecedented at the time.

I DO have a few misgivings about the Pace/Cameron FUSION 3D system. I never saw the Hannah Montana film and was very underwhelmed with the 3D imagery in the recent remake of Journey to the Center of the Earth. But niether were James Cameron films, presumably the co-inventor of FUSION 3D may well be better at such 3D filmmaking.

My main doubts lie in an entirely different direction. Cameron has shown that he has the ceativity and the ability to make wonderfull and ground-breaking special effects films several times. But he was 43 years old the last time he made a major motion picture (Titanic, 1997). The question is does he still have it, and does he have the strength of will to complete the project no matter how long it takes? The fact that he was able to slip his schedule from May to December is a positive indication of this IMHO. But does he have the drive to work the project to completion to his standards in his mid-50's?
post #51 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post


My main doubts lie in an entirely different direction. Cameron has shown that he has the ceativity and the ability to make wonderfull and ground-breaking special effects films several times. But he was 43 years old the last time he made a major motion picture (Titanic, 1997). The question is does he still have it, and does he have the strength of will to complete the project no matter how long it takes? The fact that he was able to slip his schedule from May to December is a positive indication of this IMHO. But does he have the drive to work the project to completion to his standards in his mid-50's?

Certainly a valid concern, Gary. However, I'm not so much worried about him "still having it" so much as I'm concerned with his view on things now. Everyone's outlook changes as they get older, and does the way he imagines things now still jive with the Cameron we all know? I guess the very fact that this movie relies so heavily on CGI as opposed to a nearly completely live action film (which is what Cameron is know for, obviously) is why I wonder. If he's willing to break out of his normal comfort zone, what other things is he willing to change? Hopefully, whatever that is, it's entertaining and worth watching.
post #52 of 3536
Cameron always put an idea and a good script as the most important thing, special effects is just to help the story. I hope it will be so this time 'round also
post #53 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Usually I can suspend disbelief when watching a movie but those two things just struck me as a bit hard to believe. Even for a fantasy game floating islands are somewhat cliche but for a science fiction movie it just comes off as trying way to hard to make the alien planet exotic. As for the automated guns in "Aliens" from what I remember they worked well, even with limited ammo, and the aliens retreated in order to attack using a different route. I can understand why James Cameron would not want a one sided fight in Avatar but considering that there are automated guns being used today that can hit a target from over 2 miles away it just comes off as retro-futuristic to see a science fiction movie where soldiers are shooting manual guns out of a open sided helicopter on an alien planet.

I'm not arguing that automated weaponry isn't appropriately "futuristic," it's just that filmmakers regularly take dramatic license for a variety of reasons. Frequently, it's simply a matter of what is more visually interesting and compelling. As far as the floating islands are concerned, they could be the result of some super high-tech mining operation; chopping the crust up into more workable pieces, which might also tend to piss off the natives. In any event, they may actually make sense, within the films' internal context.
post #54 of 3536
Here's Eberts take on the preview:

by Roger Ebert / August 21, 2009

I'm hoping that James Cameron's "Avatar," opening in December, will be a terrific film. But I was underwhelmed by about 15 minutes of preview footage I saw in 3-D on Friday night. The same footage has been widely shown around the country.

This is a film that Cameron has had in preparation in one form or another ever since he was filming "Titanic" in 1997. That became the top-grossing movie of all time, raising incredible hopes for "Avatar," reflected in its reputed $200 million budget. Cameron revealed his intention to use motion-capture animation to create several characters who would be entirely computer-generated, and others about whom you could never be quite sure.

The preview begins however, with actual human Marines being briefed for a tour of duty on an alien moon named Pandora, which is inhabited by humanoid beings named the Na'vi--and many other creatures, says a Marine sergeant, who want to rip them to pieces and "eat your eyeballs like jujubes." Humans cannot live on Pandora, but the paralyzed ex-Marine hero named Sully is given an avatar--a body that seems to be a native Na'vi--nine feet tall, skinny, blue, and with a tail.

In this body, Sully operates on Pandora, bonds with the Na'vi, and does battle with the savage creatures. Why he does this is not explained; the Na'vi apparently coexist peacefully with these denizens. Armed at first with a machine gun and later only with spears and knives, Sully faces monsters much taller, faster and stronger than he is. But he dodges them, outruns them, and in one case actually lassos a giant flying reptile and tames it to act as his steed. This may add up to a terrific story in the complete film. I hope so.

There is also footage of Marine helicopter gunships going into battle on Pandora. A trailer for the film informs us there are 70 million times 70 million stars in the universe, and suggests one of these may shed its light on a place with life. Since Pandora is the home of life, it seems a little odd to go to all the trouble of finding it and then going to war with its life forms. What is the human objective?

Stamp out all other life in the universe?

There's a brief shot of Sully's avatar and Neytira, a female Na'vi, about to kiss. The biology, physiology and mechanics of sex between a Na'vi and an avatar controlled by a human mind is intriguing. "Was it as good for you as I had the illusion that it was for me?"

After writing a blog entry months ago that was dubious about the future of 3-D, I was assured by countless pre-fans of "Avatar" that it would change the entire outlook for that technology. This is not the time to revisit the subject of 3-D. I will only react to what I actually saw.

3-D on the giant (original) IMAX screen, with their oversize and comfortable glasses, remains the best way to see 3-D. That's especially true because the IMAX process allows adequate light levels to be projected onto the screen, and I've never seen 3-D in a regular theater that wasn't dimmed.

I sat through the preview footage twice, the first time at the end of the back row. There was a subtle but noticeable lack of perfect registration between the dimensions. The second time I was smack dab in the center. This was the exact same seat from which I saw the IMAX 3-D presentations of "Beowulf' and "The Polar Express," the best two uses of the process I have ever seen. From that seat, the registration was perfect, and the 3-D illusion worked.

Cameron does, however, make the mistake common in recent action pictures, of cutting the action so quickly its placement in time and space is unclear. Much of the footage of Sully fighting the creatures is so close to the front of the picture and so rapidly cut that we never visually understand quite where Sully is in relationship to the position of the monster seemingly prepared to overwhelm him.

The flying reptiles present another challenge. How do you depict creatures that large (say, 25 feet long) that flap their wings quickly enough to fly? Cameron doesn't. They flap their wings far too slowly, and not particularly believably or smoothly; The effect reminded me of the flying horses in Ray Harryhausen's "Clash of the Titans" (1981).

One other detail. You'd expect every cut in this brief preview footage to be perfect. But when Sully almost falls into a vast chasm but grabs a tree root to save himself, he uses his strong arms to drag himself back up to the ledge. This action is completed in a shot from a higher POV that doesn't match, and amounts to a continuity error.

The complete film remains to be seen. Both groups I saw the preview with applauded. Cameron is reportedly still in post-production. He has made films I admired enormously ("Aliens," "Terminator 2," "The Abyss," "Titanic"). I hope he does it again.
post #55 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbug View Post

Cameron does, however, make the mistake common in recent action pictures, of cutting the action so quickly its placement in time and space is unclear. Much of the footage of Sully fighting the creatures is so close to the front of the picture and so rapidly cut that we never visually understand quite where Sully is in relationship to the position of the monster seemingly prepared to overwhelm him.

post #56 of 3536
I have high hopes for any Cameron film, but "Avatar" is being WAY over-hyped. What good can come from the hyperbole suggesting this movie will "change cinema forever"?
post #57 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK View Post

I have high hopes for any Cameron film, but "Avatar" is being WAY over-hyped. What good can come from the hyperbole suggesting this movie will "change cinema forever"?

This quote from the above "review" doesn't give me high hopes, considering that this film is at least being touted as a technical marvel if nothing else:

"The flying reptiles present another challenge. How do you depict creatures that large (say, 25 feet long) that flap their wings quickly enough to fly? Cameron doesn't. They flap their wings far too slowly, and not particularly believably or smoothly; The effect reminded me of the flying horses in Ray Harryhausen's "Clash of the Titans" (1981)."

EDIT: Give me a good story, though, and I'll gladly forgive any technical flaws it may or may not have.
post #58 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

This quote from the above "review" doesn't give me high hopes, considering that this film is at least being touted as a technical marvel if nothing else:

"The flying reptiles present another challenge. How do you depict creatures that large (say, 25 feet long) that flap their wings quickly enough to fly? Cameron doesn't. They flap their wings far too slowly, and not particularly believably or smoothly; The effect reminded me of the flying horses in Ray Harryhausen's "Clash of the Titans" (1981)."

There are a lot of birds that flap their wings slowly. Also, this is supposed to be an alien planet. How do we know what its gravitational properties are? Apparently, large chunks of land can float in the sky, yet Ebert's complaining that the dragons don't flap their wings quickly enough? Seems like an odd nit to pick.
post #59 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

There are a lot of birds that flap their wings slowly. Also, this is supposed to be an alien planet. How do we know what its gravitational properties are? Apparently, large chunks of land can float in the sky, yet Ebert's complaining that the dragons don't flap their wings quickly enough? Seems like an odd nit to pick.

Generally, the larger the bird, the less flaps-per-minute for stable flight.
Compare a sparrow with an eagle...
post #60 of 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

There are a lot of birds that flap their wings slowly. Also, this is supposed to be an alien planet. How do we know what its gravitational properties are? Apparently, large chunks of land can float in the sky, yet Ebert's complaining that the dragons don't flap their wings quickly enough? Seems like an odd nit to pick.

I wasn't talking about the speed, but rather his comments about the choppy motion being akin to Pegasus. But, I'm not passing judgement on any movie until I see it for myself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Avatar (same thread new title)