James Cameron's Avatar

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 416
Joined: August 11th, 2008

Post by Neal » August 26th, 2009, 3:20 am

Just not convinced from the trailer. In fact, it popped my 'hype' bubble.

I'll wait for some reviews.
Feature Animation Favorites:
  • Tekkonkinkreet, Watership Down, A Town Called Panic, Howl's Moving Castle, Rio 2096, Mind Game, Fantastic Planet

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » August 26th, 2009, 9:02 am

We're all familair with the "Uncanny Valley" right?

Afer seeing the trailer, I'm convinced Avatar is waaaay down there, right alongside Beowulf, The Polar Express and Final Fantasy.

Technologically impressive, but cold, creepy and unappealing.

To me, Davy Jones in the Pirates sequels remains the perfect blend between a human performance and astounding visual effects. It's a perfect balance.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Post by Vernadyn » August 26th, 2009, 11:29 am

I wouldn't go that far. After all, the creepy characters in Final Fantasy, Polar Express, and Beowulf were all supposed to be humans.

As for me, I'll do something radical and controversial and wait until I see the film as a whole.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 116
Joined: March 17th, 2006

Post by spaz » August 26th, 2009, 12:03 pm

The “digital prosthetics” in the case of Gollum or Davy Jones were great. I keep on thinking what Lasseter said regarding “who will make them act ?”. The principal motion of Gollum and Davy Jones came from an actor and was supplemented by digital. I’m certain much of this motion, especially in the case of Gollum, had to be invented of “re-acted” by the animator. During Jurassic there was a device called the DID. It stood for the “Dinosaur Input Device”. At ILM , we called it the “DIDN’T”, because it “DIDN’T” work. But the public was told it did. It was supposed to extract stop-mo animation into SI. The data was so buggered up, we just reanimated everything by hand and didn’t really say anything. Everything looked good, the top brass could still say it was the device that was responsible, everyone was happy. So, what I’m saying , is don’t be to convinced that a lot of mo-cap gets tossed and the acting choice is left to the animator.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 116
Joined: March 17th, 2006

Post by spaz » August 26th, 2009, 3:47 pm

sorry gang, what i meant to say was

" don’t be to SURPRISED that a lot of mo-cap gets tossed and the acting choice is left to the animator. "

morning toothpaste and coffee short circuit

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Post by Vernadyn » August 27th, 2009, 11:30 am

Interesting that the DID actually didn't work after all. Weren't allowed to say that on the DVD, eh? Not to get too off topic, but I've always wondered what exactly Phil Tippett's contribution was after the move to digital, especially if the DID didn't work like it was supposed to.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 116
Joined: March 17th, 2006

Post by spaz » August 27th, 2009, 11:52 am

sorry pal, i'd love to take that bait, but the answer would be liable.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » August 27th, 2009, 12:08 pm

This 3-D film process has nothing to do about art.

It's all about forcing the big theater chains to switch to digital projection.

Hollywood producers/studios want out of traditional 35mm film cameras and projectors to save production costs.

Digital is supposedly cheaper in the long run than continuing to process rolls and rolls of film stock.

Sure, the image looks a bit cleaner -- it lacks the grain of traditional film stock -- but it's antiseptic, too. I kind of like things to look life-like with some dirt as opposed to video-ish.




To be frank, I still don't think the 3-D I've seen in theaters the past few years looks any better than the 3-D attractions I've been in at Disney World... It's still that plane-separated, very fake looking 3-D you need glasses for.

60 years and this is still the best that 3-D can do? Why bother wasting all that money on effects and projection (schemes) that doesn't pay off in the end for the audience? Why not, oh, improve things that really need to be improved === like better scripts and hiring directors who aren't buddies of senior studio personnel and getting actual actors as opposed to celebrities?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 116
Joined: March 17th, 2006

Post by spaz » August 27th, 2009, 2:07 pm

There are those who are driven to invent and those who are driven to take the credit for it. Usually they’re not the same person.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Post by Vernadyn » August 27th, 2009, 3:56 pm

I actually haven't seen any theatrical film in 3D. Though I was impressed with T2:3D at Universal Studios.

Oh, and my intention wasn't to be a muckraker, spaz--I guess there's a fine line between curiosity and nosiness. Sorry about that.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 20837
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » August 27th, 2009, 4:19 pm

spaz wrote:There are those who are driven to invent and those who are driven to take the credit for it. Usually they’re not the same person.
Amen to that!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 178
Joined: November 24th, 2008
Location: Missouri, US
Contact:

Post by Sunday » September 1st, 2009, 12:53 am

It's made the rounds now, the smoke is settling, the memes are falling by the wayside ... and I'm still ok with really liking what I saw in this trailer. You haven't beaten me Internet! Not yet!
Image

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5913
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » October 23rd, 2009, 10:19 pm

Saw the new trailer today before "Paranormal Activity." I thought that it was MUCH cooler than the teaser trailer, but I was so excited that I was actually seeing the preview that I may not have been able to really "judge" what I was looking at, if that makes sense.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » November 1st, 2009, 5:09 pm

I also recently saw the new trailer, and while some of the visuals are very impressive, I can't help but be let down by the run-of-the-mill story the movie seems to feature. For a film that supposed to be so ground-breaking, it doesn't look like anyone spent much time coming up with a story that hasn't been done dozens and dozens of times before.

The designs of the natives are also pretty disappointing to me...Millions of dollars and complex computer programs for blue people with cat ears? I can understand low-budget sci-fi flicks resorting to using humans with added-on features as aliens, but I had hoped to see a little more imagination in this.

Also, I got a chuckle out of this, and those who have previously made Delgo comparisons might too.

http://img.denihilation.com/delgovatar.html

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5913
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » November 1st, 2009, 9:48 pm

Well, lucky for James Cameron, few people on earth actually saw "Delgo," so they probably won't notice that stuff. ;)

Then again, I didn't see "Delgo" myself, yet I was still reminded of it from the teaser trailer, so...
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Post Reply