MEH!

is it just me?

nope: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/

nope: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/hd/

nope:

nope:

nope:

Same, I imagine a lot of film nerds are trying to watch it at the moment!

Just wait an hour. You won't die in between.

hmmm...i´m not impressed. looks gayish (i know this isn´t a word)

I don't know what I expected but... well, I'm still looking forward to it.

But to be honest I don't see anything new and revolutionary about the special effects?

i like how communities like AICN are acting like they've had liquefied human shit sprayed on them.

I was really liking the music in that trailer, even if they did still manage to throw in that dramatic buildup sound with the high tones that gliss upwards. Can nobody making an action trailer avoids that device?

lol, the animation and rendering are pretty bad. CG kills another talented director, news at 11:00.

saying this or that about a 3 minute trailer is foolish.

i'd wait to see the whole thing before judging the VFX and the rest.

Yeah, I'm a bit underwhelmed, mostly by the designs of the aliens and their planet. I was expecting something more alien, not blue thundercats with dreadlocks and tourist shop necklaces.

hey you're talking to a guy who thoroughly enjoyed both Final Fantasy:Spirits Within and Beowulf. But I'm in the vfx/game field and I realize it's a geeky niche thing. I don't see any reason why a filmmaker with James Cameron's talent should be wasting his time on a full-cg movie at this juncture. And the rendering and animation in those clips are pretty bad. Doesn't mean I won't see it.

edit: @ azatoth

i admit, at first i was underwhelmed with the CGI on this, but on further reviewing of the trailer in HD and slow motion it's starting to look much better. i can only imagine how it will look in a proper theater with all the 3D gadgetry.

the designs of the aliens are a bit meh, though.

i will stay cautiously optimistic about this.

btw, is this the trailer cameron was working on as he wasn't satisfied with how the fox marketing guys did it. if so, i don't understand, this seems like a run of the mill sort of thing. or is this just the teaser trailer. you can get a pretty good idea what this movie will be about already.

it doesn't look terrible it just looks aimed squarely at a 13 yr. old boy demographic, and seems like it will be handicapped by the uncanny valley effect as were the star wars prequels.

  On 8/20/2009 at 5:49 PM, lumpenprol said:

it doesn't look terrible it just looks aimed squarely at a 13 yr. old boy demographic, and seems like it will be handicapped by the uncanny valley effect as were the star wars prequels.

Exactly, I understand that the crux of the story lays in our ability to empathize with the aliens but it seems like they could have come up with a more alien looking alien. These just look like saturday morning kids show type designs.

  On 8/20/2009 at 5:49 PM, lumpenprol said:

it doesn't look terrible it just looks aimed squarely at a 13 yr. old boy demographic, and seems like it will be handicapped by the uncanny valley effect as were the star wars prequels.

Have you seen District9 yet? I was VERY impressed by the CGi and it was rarely the characters stood out as CG characters.

Am I the only person who doesn't know/doesn't give a fuck about this?

i like the way the trailer is constructed but it honestly looks like it's about three years late. the design looks like uber cheese and some of the shots just look like they came from a disney film. so he's making pocahontas with aliens, basically? i'm thinking this is going to be an episode one size disappointment.

  On 8/20/2009 at 5:55 PM, Squee said:

 

Have you seen District9 yet? I was VERY impressed by the CGi and it was rarely the characters stood out as CG characters.

I haven't seen it yet but I can tell from the trailers that it does have a much more realistic look, as did Alive in Joburg. I credit that largely to the proper use of HDRI lighting, not being afraid to blow out highlights and make shadows inky black. Strange to think that the vfx for both films (Avatar and D9) were done by Weta. Weird also to think that ILM is capable of work as realistic as War of the Worlds, and as phony as the Star Wars prequels. I think a lot of it comes down to the studios just being overburdened with hundreds of vfx shots, so they rush things and cut corners and that's the result you get (though War of the Worlds had one of the shortest production schedules I know of). Not really sure what to attribute it to. I worked at the Orphanage as a modeler on Hellboy and Day After Tomorrow, and they were always obsessive about lighting and comping, which are what it all comes down to if you want to make something believable. I think most of the VFX in Hellboy, for example, are superior to anything shown in this Avatar trailer in terms of realism.

didn't part of the success of district 9's special effects come down to them knowing how to properly use their budget and what parts of the aliens needed to be realistic looking? like knowing how much they needed to detail something given the lighting they were using? just seemed very resourceful.

about avatar, i've watched the trailer again. if this were just a movie, by james cameron, with the normal amount of hype attached to that, i'd be a little more pumped for it. but when they've gone on about how it's a game changer, when it's obviously not...if it were a game changer you'd be able to see it in two minutes of footage. it would just pop out. i remember back when all i knew was the title and that it was in 3d, i thought he'd made some kind of cyberpunk movie. i wish he'd done that, because a dances with wolves story about aliens, especially when they look like this, is just gay.

  On 8/20/2009 at 6:28 PM, zaphod said:

didn't part of the success of district 9's special effects come down to them knowing how to properly use their budget and what parts of the aliens needed to be realistic looking? like knowing how much they needed to detail something given the lighting they were using? just seemed very resourceful.

 

 

Yeah, I'm too lazy to properly look into it, but seeing as Blomkamp (sp?) directed Alive in Joburg as pretty much a proof of concept for low-budget HDRI work, I'm guessing he knows his way around CG. One of the main differences between the two is that Avatar seems to be using fully digital environments, which I think just fucks things to hell and back, whereas District 9 uses real-world footage with CG comped in. There really is a world of difference. With something like D9 you can shoot a scene and take light probes of that actual environment to use to light your CG objects, which automatically makes things look much more realistic. In a fully 3D environment, it's all up to the lighting TD's imagination.

But yeah, judicious use of CG seems much more effective than trying to make the next 500 vfx shot extravaganza. Have to pick your battles.

so i guess this is the matrix and episode one all over again. a small movie no one expects much from comes out and blows people away and then a few months later the overhyped movie comes out and sucks.

  On 8/20/2009 at 5:23 PM, patternoverlap said:

Yeah, I'm a bit underwhelmed, mostly by the designs of the aliens and their planet. I was expecting something more alien, not blue thundercats with dreadlocks and tourist shop necklaces.

that´s exactly the point. i expected a totally alien but also credible world. this is thailand with floating rocks and ethno-BLEH blue jarjar bings thingies - and of course another BLEH Lovestory.

Kind of hard to judge from just a trailer - I mean, all the people who have ACTUALLY seen the footage have raved about it - of course you have to take into account some of the hype, but I really doubt that the reaction would be so positive across the board (though there were some detractors at AICN I believe) if there wasn't some there. Plus, it's fucking JAMES CAMERON doing SCI-FI. When has that NOT been a winning fucking combination?

Re: CGI effects - I also really wonder about the difference what someone sees when they're working on CG for movies on their computer screen vs what it looks like when it's blasted on a big-ass screen (maybe lumpenprol can talk about that). Like, for the Matrix Reloaded I thought the CG was HORRID when I saw it in the theatre - Rubber Johnny Mnenomic all the way - but when I saw it later on a relatively large but not huge ass TV, it wasn't nearly as noticeable.

  On 8/20/2009 at 6:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 5:55 PM, Squee said:

 

Have you seen District9 yet? I was VERY impressed by the CGi and it was rarely the characters stood out as CG characters.

 

I haven't seen it yet but I can tell from the trailers that it does have a much more realistic look, as did Alive in Joburg. I credit that largely to the proper use of HDRI lighting, not being afraid to blow out highlights and make shadows inky black. Strange to think that the vfx for both films (Avatar and D9) were done by Weta. Weird also to think that ILM is capable of work as realistic as War of the Worlds, and as phony as the Star Wars prequels. I think a lot of it comes down to the studios just being overburdened with hundreds of vfx shots, so they rush things and cut corners and that's the result you get (though War of the Worlds had one of the shortest production schedules I know of). Not really sure what to attribute it to. I worked at the Orphanage as a modeler on Hellboy and Day After Tomorrow, and they were always obsessive about lighting and comping, which are what it all comes down to if you want to make something believable. I think most of the VFX in Hellboy, for example, are superior to anything shown in this Avatar trailer in terms of realism.

I'm so glad you mention War of the Worlds. Such an underrated movie when it comes to action, cgi, and sound effects. Best. Fucking. Sound. Effects. Ever.