Just not convinced from the trailer. In fact, it popped my 'hype' bubble.
I'll wait for some reviews.
James Cameron's Avatar
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.
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.
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.
-
GeorgeC
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?
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?
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."
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
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
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...
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."