James Cameron's Avatar

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

Looks terrible.

 

Mr Salads what happened to you man

Look at her mouth dude. Thats just as creepy as Polar Express

  Mr Salads said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

Looks terrible.

 

Mr Salads what happened to you man

 

Look at her mouth dude. Thats just as creepy as Polar Express

for someone who feels like you are inside every 3d movie you see that's a surprising statement

  Mr Salads said:

Those are fake.

yeah, they could be

there was apparently some concept art floating around but fox got everyone to pull it from the web sites

edit: this link apparently has a grainy shot of a rough rendering of the cgi model of a na'vi alien and has been confirmed by someone or other yadda yadda yadda

  zazen said:

here's some early concept art of the na'vi aliens, although apparently it has changed a lot since these were done.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

http://www.flixster.com/news/2008/11/21/james-camerons-avatar-navi-concept-art-revealed

 

 

 

they're definately still blue though, because Cameron talks about blue creatures a lot in the interviews

 

edit: ok, those images above might be fake, its hard to tell

yea, i think those turned out to be fake, though the general idea is similar, if i remember correctly.

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

Looks terrible.

 

Mr Salads what happened to you man

sounds like the same ol' salads to me. :undecided:

as I post in this thread I am finding a ridiculous amount of hype about this movie on various sites

e.g. from this link

  Quote

"I have worked on many 'big' films, and normally working on a film ruins the 'magic.' You go and see the film and your inside knowledge affects the way you see the finished result "I remember that, a crane was holding that up with a forklift etc etc".....BUT... The finished shots I have seen gave me goose pimples. Seriously, just try to think how blown away you were by the first time you saw Star Wars, then multiply it by 50. Then double it. Only then will you be 1% closer to appreciating how good this is going to be."

50 multiplied by 2 will only be 1% of ... by my reckoning he's saying it will blow you away 10,000 times more than star wars???

a tad over-hyped.

Yes just a tad.

things usually live up to large hype tho

You are right, this is going to fuck your eyeballs and come in your brain

jizzin in neurons and synapses

Even if the film doesn't live up to the hype (not saying it wont). The technology will kick start some new techniques pretty much how Cameron made the abyss to test out that blob so he could do the T-1000, so his next project Battle Angel will have worked out all the kinks.

Battle Angel is a bit of a faggy title.

Battle Angel is a manga thing apparently about a cyborg chick.

The title might make more sense when you see the cover of the original manga:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BAA_1_cover.jpg

Oh I'm not saying it doesn't make sense or I don't get it, just think it's a shit name is all.

Not sure it'll transfer well to film either, but then I've never read the manga so I could be wrong.

  catsonearth said:

  zaphod said:

all the hype about this is so incredibly vague...i'm really looking forward to it but i have no clue what makes it "game changing" or whatever. we'll see...

 

from what i've heard what makes it so "game changing" is the fact that it's a completely new kind of 3D. not your standard "stuff pops out of the screen at you" gimmicky 3D, but more like the film screen is a window through which you're looking into a 3D world where you can perceive depth, perspective and volume. sounds pretty badass to me, but i think james cameron is pretty much a genius anyway, so i'm predisposed.

 

havent finished the rest of the thread, but if you think thats good you should get an nvidia card + lcd shutterglasses, a crt monitor and play HL2 or painkiller - been doing this for years and im glad the world might be catching up finally. shader intensive games, some of the shaders arent actually 3d, its a trick, and 3d across the gaming board would make them sort it the fuck out!

HL2/painkiller on the other hand, oh fuck they look good. not sure about crysis, im waiting for the new cards before i upgrade..

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mr Salads said:

They DO give you a sense of actually being there.

 

only like 1-2 3d movies i've seen actually do this, the rest are kind of half baked efforts (chicken little, monsters VS aliens, etc)

 

Every 3d movie I have seen has done this. Dont bullshit me.

 

haha im not bullshitting you , most 3d movies may try to do what you describe i just don't think most of them succeed except for a few. Are you really susceptible to the 3d glasses than the average person? I don't think most people here could say 'Chicken Little' made them feel like they were inside the film. there are varying degrees of this 'pull you in' sensation and i think some movies fail miserably at it and some are like being on LSD while sober (the latter is much rarer).

you really need to be able to change the depth settings and stuff like that for a proper 3d experience - i whack it up mental with games and it makes you seem really small and everything really large, works well to create fear or courage. odd experience:]

would also matter where in the cinema you sit, as to how much pop you get ;]

yeah, its so ridiculous with 3d games, just sitting around with the immersion is out of this world.

project trico/last guardian is the perfect showcase, mix it with blunts if you still smoke and roll in the grass with the big dragon? it would be soo cool. damn i miss doing that.

i hope next gen are 3d so i can play quadico3D or whatever it will be.

Gamespot has some details of the Stereoscopic 3D Avatar game that was demoed at private sessions at E3:

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6211102/james...rst-impressions

Also there was a full size model of the avatar mech-suit at E3, pics here:

http://www.collider.com/2009/06/02/e3-2009...amerons-avatar/

  Mr Salads said:

King kong had some really crap CGI.

hahaha no shit I dont know why awetipeance or whatever his name is keeps saying every movies cgi is weak compared to shitty ass plastic polished video gameish looking King Kong, fucking amazing how some people seem to have such a mindless opinion on art

no offense

King Kong at the top of the Empire State Building = perfect CGI. Dudes, get on with reality (or irreality lol).

Anyway, it's totally logical that visual entertainment is bound to get closer and closer to our "brain" as we advance technologically. That means 3d, glasses with head motion for Games/movie/

That thing about not having to focus your eyes, but you let yourself go with the movie, is some sort of "breaking the fourth wall" in a way if you think about it. You are watching the God-like watcher. In games that could happen too, we've seen more and more depth of field stuff appear in games. I really can see games and movies going the same way, but with a major tangeant (one is passive, the other active). In fact let's say in 50 years, both could have merged into a single entity. Games try hard to become cinematic, and movies want to be more and more game-like.

p.s.: Lawnmower man ha

pirates of the caribbean had some amazing cgi (the kraken).

  Blanket Fort Collapse said:

no offense

only get offended when people disagree with me who *do not* have shit taste

  Philip Glass said:

King Kong at the top of the Empire State Building = perfect CGI. Dudes, get on with reality (or irreality lol).

thanks for speaking truth :kiss:

i didn't watch all of king kong. while the cgi was expressive, it was hardly what i would call "good".

  zaphod said:

i didn't watch all of king kong. while the cgi was expressive, it was hardly what i would call "good".

i guess it's just a difference in opinion, for instance Coal Bucket (and maybe you?)liked Terminator Salvation one of the worst films i've ever seen.

but in all honesty i think you have to be a really jaded person in to not be somewhat impressed by the work done on the King Kong character in that film. i mean shit i felt for that monkey in king kong, and i dont think a CGI character in a movie since or before was able to give me any sense of empathy. So in the context of this discussion (avatar and special effects evolution) first there was Gollum imo the first successful fully CGI character in a live action film, then there was King Kong. Now there will be avatar, and i am confident with WETA at the helm they will at least produce some CGI characters that will leave a huge impression in people's brains. If anybody is anticipating this film and thinks the cgi in LOTR or KIng Kong is shit you really should lower your expectations. for certain individuals like myself those two movies were the jumping off point to something even more grand and i think Avatar could be it

there are also people i think who suffer much more from the uncanny valley effect than others

for instance i know people who think every CGI human recreation they have ever seen looks terrible even that Metrics one above to them looks like a cartoon. To me it looks 100% real. So i guess what im saying is when it comes to living creatures or humans humanoids it's much harder to convince people

i liked terminator salvation as a crappy, b movie. although thinking back it wasn't something i'd ever want to see again.

like i said, king kong was expressive, but the actual quality of the cgi was lacking imo. it looked fake as hell at parts. it's sort of impossible to compare it with avatar, which no one has seen any footage of. i don't really see the point, other than saying that weta does know how to handle special effects so this might be a remarkable movie. i actually prefer expressive effects over extremely realistic ones, which is why i can go back and watch movies from the eighties and enjoy the effects sequences more than say, transformers.

and that youtube clip someone linked doesn't look realistic. the mouth is the centerpoint for expression in the face. if it is off, which it undoubtedly is in that vid, then the whole thing will look strange. i'm sorry, but it just doesn't look real. not to say it isn't impressive, but it is most certainly not "photo real" looking.