Hitler freaks out about the Avatar trailer

good post

Cameron hasn't failed me yet. I have no reason to assume he will soon.

you don't have to assume, the proof is right there

I think the people who are heralding 3D as the wave of the future are kidding themselves to a certain extent. To be honest I think we're at something of a tipping point for 3D, where the cost involved may not outweigh the risk. The first one of these bloated $300+ million epics that falls flat on its face and causes a studio to fail will perhaps make people start to reevaluate things. That didn't happen with Titanic or even Waterworld, but it could. Look at Speed Racer, cost $120 million, made $43 mil domestic. The only thing that saved it was $50 mil on foreign markets, but even then it ended up in the red and cost Warner Bros $26 million.

I see this with games too. Developers of the AAA titles everyone supposedly likes to play are under much more pressure to perform than people working on Wii/last gen. The costs of development are simply much steeper than for last gen games, so the publishers understandably are stressed.

  On 8/31/2009 at 4:20 AM, karmakramer said:

  On 8/31/2009 at 1:49 AM, zazen said:

lol, there are some classic lines

 

"anyone that hasn't seen Piranha 2, Xenogenesis, or Dark Angel, please leave now."

 

"I wait ten years for fucking Captain Planet with cats!"

 

"Sir, you expect a miracle from Fox studios?"

"God damn fox studios would give Wolverine webshooters and a bat cape."

 

PS: I saw the Avatar Day 3D preview and it _was_ amazing. However overall I conclude that we are in for a visually amazing film that loses some marks due to the usual big-budget symptoms of cheesiness and script weaknesses.

 

Cheesiness isn't bad when it comes to action movies, look at Predator or Aliens for example. I think we are in for one hell of a ride, maybe not the best film in terms of powerful acting and story, but its going to be the usual James Cameron movie, completely badass, with great humor and emotion.

 

People who think this looks stupid... I have a question... Do you have a stick up your ass? Seriously, with looking at every movie coming out this year, you decide to shit on the one that's entirely a new franchise/science fiction universe, has stunning visual effects in 3D, and the creative mind of the guy who brought us Aliens, Terminator 2, and the Abyss... You're not excited to see an entire new ecosystem of plant life, creatures, and instruments/tools? You're not interested in seeing the most epic battles of nature vs. technology on a planet with building sized trees and floating rock islands? Your not interested in the idea of 3D film-making, when Speilberg, Peter Jackson, Gel Toro, Steven Soderbergh have all seen a good amount of footage and are now all shooting in 3D...

 

Do you not understand the concept that films today are like looking at the world with only one eye...? You think black and white to color changed things for films... I'd argue 2D to 3D will be even bigger.

 

Haters will be haters I guess... but even if you can't take this world seriously (Ferngully), does that really make it much worse? I personally think a fully realized 3D Ferngully would be fucking amazing to see in theaters. It may be for kids, but kids movies (especially stoned) are usually pretty hilarious and awesome, cause the animations are usually visually very interesting.

thank you

i'd rather watch aliens in 2d on crack

  On 8/31/2009 at 6:00 AM, lumpenprol said:

I think the people who are heralding 3D as the wave of the future are kidding themselves to a certain extent. To be honest I think we're at something of a tipping point for 3D, where the cost involved may not outweigh the risk. The first one of these bloated $300+ million epics that falls flat on its face and causes a studio to fail will perhaps make people start to reevaluate things. That didn't happen with Titanic or even Waterworld, but it could. Look at Speed Racer, cost $120 million, made $43 mil domestic. The only thing that saved it was $50 mil on foreign markets, but even then it ended up in the red and cost Warner Bros $26 million.

 

I see this with games too. Developers of the AAA titles everyone supposedly likes to play are under much more pressure to perform than people working on Wii/last gen. The costs of development are simply much steeper than for last gen games, so the publishers understandably are stressed.

It doesn't / won't cost much to produce things in 3D... so your argument is pretty flawed. Once Cameron, Speilberg, Jackson, etc... are all producing and releasing these 3D films, people are going to crave more 3D... and studios will be more interested in producing these 3D films because it will be the current "hot" thing in Hollywood.

3D Home Theater displays were planning on coming out this year, but because of the economy were delayed. These are displays that don't require glasses.

Once you have seen 3D done properly (I have with Coraline), you won't want to see it in 2D... cause the experience will be so much less enjoyable. This is going to make most people more into seeing movies in theaters again, because the experience will be that much more better/different. Which will please the big studios because this will produce more box office success and less pirating.

Technology has always had this problem where the raw power was always farther ahead then the capabilities the software/tools offered... so to get the cutting edge effects or whatever, you'd have to be spending a lot of money and time on pushing the software to achieve maximum performance. However, we have reached a point in CGI where it is photorealistic... so now it will only be a matter of time until producing these CGI will be easier/faster and cheaper.

Smaller production studios will then be able to use a smaller budget and get effects that look just as good as the shit you see in big blockbusters... i.e. District 9.

i guess we're talking about different things, 3D viewing vs making visual-effects-heavy films. I don't understand how 3D viewing will work without glasses, guess I'll have to wait and see.

In terms of dropping costs for 3D, that's true but it has a long way to go. 3D heavy films are getting more expensive, not less, and production is moving overseas (like my studio) in order to cut costs. 3D is certainly here to stay, but the day when anyone can do feature-length, feature-quality work from their laptop is still far away. It's still very labor intensive and I see that changing only gradually over the next decade.

  On 8/31/2009 at 9:09 AM, lumpenprol said:

i guess we're talking about different things, 3D viewing vs making visual-effects-heavy films. I don't understand how 3D viewing will work without glasses, guess I'll have to wait and see.

 

In terms of dropping costs for 3D, that's true but it has a long way to go. 3D heavy films are getting more expensive, not less, and production is moving overseas (like my studio) in order to cut costs. 3D is certainly here to stay, but the day when anyone can do feature-length, feature-quality work from their laptop is still far away. It's still very labor intensive and I see that changing only gradually over the next decade.

Perhaps it might take some time, but who knows, technology is always rapidly improving faster and faster, so it could be here sooner then you think. What Studio do you work for btw?

no, mainly because i don't get it

  On 8/31/2009 at 5:43 AM, Wall Bird said:

Cameron hasn't failed me yet. I have no reason to assume he will soon.

well he only made the worst movie of all time. or are you gonna tell me you actually like titanic?

i've never seen titanic .. cause i knew at the time that i wouldn't want to see it ... i do that with all films that i think will suck .. i trust my gaedar i can bet that chickflick boned ..but as i haven't seen it i can't in all fairness agree with gordo .. as much as i'd like to ... -sie- .. the things we do for the sake of self respect ..

;-p :: E-;

I saw the 3D trailer the other day and liked the look of it. Oh dear.

i'm gonna see it ... dunno about in 3d though ... i haven't watched any of the 'newgen' 3d projects in actually in their native 3d yet (with screeners you get that ;l-]) ... (be a lol actually if i bought the glasses and watched the screeners at home with them on .. or even my sunnies or something ... just to make me feel like i'm buying into this thing .. and for the sake of insanity .. which is good for you apparently )

RAMMSTEIN HABE NICHT DAS AVATORKRAEUSENNIGUNG!!

  On 8/31/2009 at 4:20 AM, karmakramer said:

Cheesiness isn't bad when it comes to action movies, look at Predator or Aliens for example.

I agree, another example is that there were plenty of cheesy Sam Gangee moments in LOTR ("I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you." ) but it still wailed overall.

But, if you're setting up a new hobby of defending Avatar, be prepared to be in it for the long haul, because however good it turns out to be, it wont be perfect, and that means there will be tons of people criticising it, because of the huge profile it has.

i wonder how many more times hitler will be really pissed about something

  On 8/31/2009 at 8:57 AM, karmakramer said:

This is going to make most people more into seeing movies in theaters again,

umm .. acceleration of product distribution from concept to living room .. illustrates that the idea that the cinema is still doomed ... 'anything you can do i can do better' .. -(the song)- ... don't have to deal with normals eating from crinkly food during the quiet bits .. checking their cells during the dark bits -(went to see district 9 in a cinema and some really fat nerd fuck (with embarassed child heh who was looking back at me apologetically) was part way through scrolling through emails .. and i already hate those fucking giant and bright EXIT signs on either side of the screen .. if that wasn't bad enough .. ) ... plus then there's the sfeating ... not comfortable .. then the fact that my bladder isn't a fan of long down sitting .. i need to pause sometimes ... wtf ...

anyway ... cinemas are doomed .. of course like with the 'theatre' .. there will always be an audience .. willing to smelt sheckles for i dunno .. a communal experience .. or whatever ..but utlimately .. forget it ..the horse has bolted .. new fangled whatever or not ..

i really doubt the cinema experience is going to go away. i love the communal aspect of watching a movie; it makes most comedies and horror films watchable, where i probably wouldn't bother on my own. yes, there are annoying things about sitting in a crowded theater, but you aren't going to get anywhere near the quality of experience at home.

  On 9/2/2009 at 5:06 PM, zazen said:

  On 8/31/2009 at 4:20 AM, karmakramer said:

Cheesiness isn't bad when it comes to action movies, look at Predator or Aliens for example.

 

I agree, another example is that there were plenty of cheesy Sam Gangee moments in LOTR ("I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you." ) but it still wailed overall.

 

But, if you're setting up a new hobby of defending Avatar, be prepared to be in it for the long haul, because however good it turns out to be, it wont be perfect, and that means there will be tons of people criticising it, because of the huge profile it has.

If they've seen it and don't like it, then fuck em'... I won't spend a second defending it. Also it's possible I might not like it too, but I find that unlikely. Based on the technology and premise alone, I hope this movie is success so more films like it get produced.

that is a lol