MEH!

  On 8/20/2009 at 7:03 PM, Squee said:

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.

QFT - man, that's one of those films I bought 'cause I can just throw it in and revel in the absolutely stunning carnage.

i agree with everything said in this thread

trailer made me lol a bit in my mouth

avator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU

  On 8/20/2009 at 6:58 PM, T35513R said:

 

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).

that's a really good question. It's a serious issue; many vfx houses are very particular about their screen calibration and sometimes require their lighters to work in rooms with almost no light. Since I always worked at the start of the pipeline my knowledge of what comes in at the tail end isn't as full as I wish it were, but proper lighting and comping are certainly key. As you see in this Avatar trailer, too much of it is lacking contrast. It gets a very flat, gray look, common to a lot of films with mediocre VFX. One of the few shots in the trailer that I think looks pretty good is the early shot moving forward of the trees in the mist, it has a good range of value. But take for example the shot of the space ship above the planet, we all know from real life footage of the shuttle that the side of a craft in space facing away from the sun will be in extremely dark shadow, yet here it isn't. That's just a lighter wimping out and thinking he needs to have bounced light on everything. 2001 did a much better job using models. The simple fact is if you're creating an entirely digital environment there's no way to control for all the factors so it's pretty much doomed to look phony on some level.

  On 8/20/2009 at 7:18 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 6:58 PM, T35513R said:

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).

 

that's a really good question. It's a serious issue; many vfx houses are very particular about their screen calibration and sometimes require their lighters to work in rooms with almost no light. Since I always worked at the start of the pipeline my knowledge of what comes in at the tail end isn't as full as I wish it were, but proper lighting and comping are certainly key. As you see in this Avatar trailer, too much of it is lacking contrast. It gets a very flat, gray look, common to a lot of films with mediocre VFX. One of the few shots in the trailer that I think looks pretty good is the early shot moving forward of the trees in the mist, it has a good range of value. But take for example the shot of the space ship above the planet, we all know from real life footage of the shuttle that the side of a craft in space facing away from the sun will be in extremely dark shadow, yet here it isn't. That's just a lighter wimping out and thinking he needs to have bounced light on everything. 2001 did a much better job using models. The simple fact is if you're creating an entirely digital environment there's no way to control for all the factors so it's pretty much doomed to look phony on some level.

Word! Thanks for answering - it's something that I've always wondered about. I can see what you mean, exactly, in the trailer - the trees in the mist looked great, but, yeah, something felt off about some of the space shuttle shots and now I know why.

This is off topic, but I wonder how you feel about the effects in The Fountain - I thought they looked pretty spectacular, and I know that they were almost exclusively model based which always seems to add a feeling of depth and "realism" lacking in a lot of CG based sci-fi film - though I do think War of the Worlds looked solid all the way through and the District 9 stuff also looks pretty ace.

Hollywood director's dont understand that Physics are more important than texture realism!! ill say it again: PHYSICS are more important than texture realism!!!!!

the movie was made for wow fans n shit. looks stupid

Yeah, I think I'm going to need a scientific explanation for why there are floating rocks.

I heard D9 is almost all CGI. Thats disappointing

avatar looks FUCKING HORRIBLE ... the cgi is as bad as 'beowulf,' and the story/acting looks like ultra-cheese

The aliens won't become believable in a trailer. You fucking guys who are already calling this a flop are pretty fucking stupid. This movie is 2 hours and 30 minutes long... you just saw less then what?... 2 minutes...

The CG is the best CG to date... and whether you like the style is one thing, but I personally welcome a universe unlike anything before. Sure they could have made the aliens have the dark, realistic tone, but that would completely go against the story James Cameron is trying to tell.

""I get that they're trying to follow up on the promises that Avatar looks like nothing ever has, and would rather show off as many flashy scenes as possible rather than ease you into this world. But the Quicktime format is so limiting, especially for a 3D movie, that the impact of all the CGI wizardry is muted anyway. Already people are complaining that Sam Worthington's Avatar doesn't look realistic, that the blue skin looks fake, because they haven't had enough time to see it move like a human, hear it talk, or see it respond to its world. Having seen it in Hall H, I promise it works. It just needs time to settle in, and just by showing one complete scene at Comic Con, they sold the effect entirely. Cutting together all the random scenes in the trailer just makes you more disoriented.""

--

Basically proving my above point. Something "alien" won't be convincing. Just like when the first Native American's encountered European boats off the shores, they didn't actually even see them at first, because their minds couldn't grasp what they were seeing.

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:47 PM, karmakramer said:

Just like when the first Native American's encountered European boats off the shores, they didn't actually even see them at first, because their minds couldn't grasp what they were seeing.

i not disagreeing with anything else you quoted, but i've always found this 'old wives tail' about history kind of silly. How do we know they 'couldn't see them'? is there any evidence to prove this at all?

That would mean that any human who hasnt seen an object before would literally see right through it if it was a totally alien concept to them, its just absurd and i never understood why this theory has been spread around to anyone but old wives. IT also i think underestimates the power of the human brain, just because you don't understand mentally what you are seeing doesnt mean you cant see it.

i'll wait for imdb to tell me if it's good or not

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:49 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:47 PM, karmakramer said:

Just like when the first Native American's encountered European boats off the shores, they didn't actually even see them at first, because their minds couldn't grasp what they were seeing.

 

i not disagreeing with anything else you quoted, but i've always found this 'old wives tail' about history kind of silly. How do we know they 'couldn't see them'? is there any evidence to prove this at all?

That would mean that any human who hasnt seen an object before would literally see right through it if it was a totally alien concept to them, its just absurd and i never understood why this theory has been spread around to anyone but old wives. IT also i think underestimates the power of the human brain, just because you don't understand mentally what you are seeing doesnt mean you cant see it.

It's possible its completely made up... I honestly regretted referring to it after I posted. But my point basically stands. You've got to let these new concepts wash over you, before you can accept it...

These Aliens, when you see them are obvious not humans in make-up or something somehow. It's just impossible considering their shape and the way they move. So you immediately know that its not a physical object... so it must be CG.

It's really going to be up to the viewer, whether he/she wants to accept this world and get immersed in it. The jaded of course will never be satisfied.

They are showing 15 mins of preview footage in select iMax and digital theaters tomorrow (I have a ticket for one in London) so we will find out more then ...

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:32 PM, karmakramer said:

The aliens won't become believable in a trailer. You fucking guys who are already calling this a flop are pretty fucking stupid. This movie is 2 hours and 30 minutes long... you just saw less then what?... 2 minutes...

 

The CG is the best CG to date... and whether you like the style is one thing, but I personally welcome a universe unlike anything before. Sure they could have made the aliens have the dark, realistic tone, but that would completely go against the story James Cameron is trying to tell.

What the fuck do you know about it? Shut up dude.

  On 8/20/2009 at 11:08 PM, Mr Salads said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:32 PM, karmakramer said:

The aliens won't become believable in a trailer. You fucking guys who are already calling this a flop are pretty fucking stupid. This movie is 2 hours and 30 minutes long... you just saw less then what?... 2 minutes...

 

The CG is the best CG to date... and whether you like the style is one thing, but I personally welcome a universe unlike anything before. Sure they could have made the aliens have the dark, realistic tone, but that would completely go against the story James Cameron is trying to tell.

 

What the fuck do you know about it? Shut up dude.

I've been following this movie for awhile... and the treatment for this is readily available. Also between interviews and articles written about this, you can basically put everything together which is, this will be the most visually stunning 3D experience you have yet to experience.

  On 8/20/2009 at 11:11 PM, karmakramer said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 11:08 PM, Mr Salads said:

  On 8/20/2009 at 10:32 PM, karmakramer said:

The aliens won't become believable in a trailer. You fucking guys who are already calling this a flop are pretty fucking stupid. This movie is 2 hours and 30 minutes long... you just saw less then what?... 2 minutes...

 

The CG is the best CG to date... and whether you like the style is one thing, but I personally welcome a universe unlike anything before. Sure they could have made the aliens have the dark, realistic tone, but that would completely go against the story James Cameron is trying to tell.

 

What the fuck do you know about it? Shut up dude.

 

I've been following this movie for awhile... and the treatment for this is readily available. Also between interviews and articles written about this, you can basically put everything together which is, this will be the most visually stunning 3D experience you have yet to experience.

Dude. Shut the fuck up.

Finally got to watch this - not bad, looks interesting. Still reserving judgement until I can see it properly; I just hope I don't HAVE to see it in 3D...

  On 8/20/2009 at 11:14 PM, Mr Salads said:

Dude. Shut the fuck up.

dude, why are you being such an ass?

Mr Salads, you asked me a question. Chill out man.

If you can share your useless opinion of why this will suck, I can certainly share mine.

Can anyone explain what this Avatar shit is? I have literally no fucking clue what is going on, it just looks like a boring run of the mill CGI action film thing?

Just wait till Dec. 18th and go see the movie.

I'd seriously like to know who here would pass the opportunity to see this stoned in a 3D IMAX.

watmm was the first place i heard about all this. and holy shit, it comes out on my birthday!

Is that it? Where does it come from though? Because isn't Shamalamadingdong doing like... exactly the same movie next year?

I'd pass up the opportunity to see it stoned in an IMAX fo' reals.