James Cameron's Avatar

  On 12/19/2009 at 10:19 PM, gaarg said:

Ok, here's the real question for you hard-core film freaks:

 

Any of you that love Tarkovski's Stalker or Nostalgia and have seen Avatar, could you say Avatar has ANYTHING at all against those two masterpieces? Aesthetically I mean. This I really want to know.

Compare Stalker and Avatar?

They're completely different.

Avatar was a good but fairly mindless CGI fest of a movie, Stalker was an almost absolutely perfect film (one of my favorites of all time).

I should watch other Tarkovski films.

Oh, you asked if Avatar has anything against it.

No

  On 1/4/2010 at 11:51 PM, Springymajig said:

 

Mocap? More like mocrap!

 

:P

 

To be fair they did mocap better than I've ever seen it done before but it still looks awful in comparrison to keyframed animation. I mean, neither looks real but at least key frame animation is appealing. Actually King Kong was really good mocap.

 

And I DO think the environments in Avatar were AMAZING, the fact that none of that stuff was real is incredible. But pretty much anything that moved looked like something from Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (and if anyone tries to defend that film I really won't know what to do...)

I doubt keyframe animation would be appealing without stylized characters and that would be a totally different thing IMO

Avatars character animation didn't really bother me, maybe because of low expectations. I think the difference in detail is pretty big compared with spirits within

  On 1/8/2010 at 3:20 AM, DeadlyTowers said:

 

I doubt keyframe animation would be appealing without stylized characters and that would be a totally different thing IMO

 

Avatars character animation didn't really bother me, maybe because of low expectations. I think the difference in detail is pretty big compared with spirits within

Key frame animation is very frequently used in realistic live action films, not just stylized stuff. For example crazy stunt work that's impossible to do in real life or too expensive and hence the reason they do in CG anyway. So like for example on Return of the King when Legolas jumps up on the elephant thingy or something, if I recall properly that was all key frame animation.

Also up until recently facial expressions and hands were all done without mocap because there wasn't good enough motion capture technology to capture complex and subtle movements like that.

  On 1/8/2010 at 2:09 AM, Awepittance said:

if you like your scifi action with a dash of Bad Taste or Dead Alive you will love District 9

It's called BRAIN DEAD GOD DAMMIT!

But yes you are right <3

i had a great time. first time in ages i've felt the price of the ticket was justified...

i think all this arguing about mocap VS actual key frame animation is pretty much as retarded as arguing about doing glitching by hand or automatically with a VST in an idm track.

any technique in the hands of an accomplished team of artists will come out looking pretty great, i think it matters little how they actually achieved what they did with Avatar but the fact remains that it is by far the best looking CGI in almost every regard (animation, realism, textures) in a movie to date.

If you think the cgi looks too fake or crappy you are very hard to please

I've been thinking about Terminator 2 having better used CGI than Avatar. Not more advanced but better used. I believe it more than I belive Avatar's. It's about the filmmaking again, sorry...

I went to see Avatar tonight. Went to the IMAX 3D showing, wore the specs. thought it was alright. my bird got a headache.

bulletpoints are most effective:

• all i expect from big budget hollywood flicks is a really entertaining two hours, which i got from Avatar in spades x1000

• blue aliens are hot? wtf? was i just high?

• seriously LOVED the overall creative direction of the film—absolutely loved the effects.

• fucking 3d is my jam, i didn't get a headache (though i'd heard complaints along those lines from friends)

i think most movies don't warrant theater viewing, especially repeated theater viewing, but this would definitely pass the test. my gf and i were totally convinced we'd be able to watch the imaginarium of dr parnassus in the same day, but i kind of think we'd be let down after watching avatar in theaters.

obviously, the plot is really derivative (I'm sure there are many more variations of the same theme, including the Fern Gully and Pocahontas comparisons I've heard), but I think the application of that theme/plot was interestingly expounded. most of the characters were archetypal in an almost-ridiculous way (or at least really sensationalized). that being said though, i had so much goddamn fun watching this film.

that's the bottom line. it is kind of dumb. the acting is kind of bad. the dialogue is pretty atrocious. but all that being said, it's a pretty great sci-fi action flick and was well worth the price of admission. i don't recall ever saying that about another movie.

  On 1/10/2010 at 7:50 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

yeah i think when it comes out on dvd people will be a bit disappointed.

Heck I can't even imagine wanting to watch this again in the cinema... once was cool just for the experience...

To me a really good film gets better and better the more I think about it, and then I see it again and BAM I realise it's a work of genius. Avatar is one of those films that, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

www.learnnavi.org

I just saw this movie again

still think it's great, by far the best 3D movie yet

District 9 was still the best movie of '09 though

Hay guys, I finally saw Avator!

you go girl!

**Waits on Maddox review**

  On 1/12/2010 at 6:55 AM, lumpenprol said:

Hay guys, I finally saw Avator!

well?

Not sure what I can add that others haven't already. Basically I think it's a very well crafted film. It had romance, action, was simplistic enough for young adults, the theme speaks to the video game generation, and I think the 3D glasses were chosen not only because they are new technology, but because they helped conceal the transitions between real and CG. It's sort of the perfect Hollywood blockbuster, but I didn't feel it was totally passionless. It seemed like a personal film for Cameron.

I remember watching Titanic and resenting Cameron for getting to me emotionally despite my better judgment. I thought the romance in that movie was ridiculous, and yet when some of the people died and Leo became a popsicle I was moved. He's a very talented filmmaker that way. I thought this film was similar. I actually teared up at five points during the film, mostly because of Zoe Saldana's acting, I thought she did a great job. But otherwise I felt it was pretty flat, even the flying scenes were a bit flat. I agree with everyone else, they should have ditched the music and done a better, more subtle job.

I think I'm just getting to be a sentimental old man. I wouldn't have minded getting rid of the whole military element, and having a full 3 hours of Sully and Netiri exploring Pandora, flying bats and fucking under glowing trees, they should have gone full-out for that 70's Heavy Metal psychedelic feel. But I did like the environmental message, too bad the loggers who could benefit from seeing it are too busy scraping together a living by cutting down hardwoods for Costco and Ikea.

nice impressions lump

I should add that, seeing it in a Chinese theater, all the parts spoken in Navi were completely incomprehensible to me, as they were subtitled in Chinese only. That probably served to the film's benefit!

  On 1/12/2010 at 8:57 AM, lumpenprol said:

I think the 3D glasses were chosen not only because they are new technology, but because they helped conceal the transitions between real and CG

enjoyed reading your review. I selected this part because i think it's essential to the film's enjoyment. Not only did the 3d glasses help conceal the transition from real to CGI but so does the plot element of him becoming an avatar. Cameron has mastered that a lot of filmmakers have been unable to pull off is isolating and perfecting to the best of his ability a special effect technique and building plot elements around it that make the effects seem more believable. Good example is the T-1000 in T2, the plot says he was made out of liquid metal. For the time CGI techniques were were capable of creating that kind of stylized hyper real metallic look, but other materials like stone or wood probably would look like obvious fakery.

  On 1/12/2010 at 10:19 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/12/2010 at 8:57 AM, lumpenprol said:

I think the 3D glasses were chosen not only because they are new technology, but because they helped conceal the transitions between real and CG

 

 

enjoyed reading your review. I selected this part because i think it's essential to the film's enjoyment. Not only did the 3d glasses help conceal the transition from real to CGI but so does the plot element of him becoming an avatar. Cameron has mastered that a lot of filmmakers have been unable to pull off is isolating and perfecting to the best of his ability a special effect technique and building plot elements around it that make the effects seem more believable. Good example is the T-1000 in T2, the plot says he was made out of liquid metal. For the time CGI techniques were were capable of creating that kind of stylized hyper real metallic look, but other materials like stone or wood probably would look like obvious fakery.

Yeah that was it...

Okay... This film belongs in an amusement park. Not in a 'this film is a rollercoaster' way, but that this film (in 3D) is a fun visual experience and more akin to a novelty and amusement than what I consider to be cinema.

I would not have enjoyed this film without 3D, which was admittedly very good.

It's not really worth belittling the soppy plot because it does what it's supposed to, very simply, but I do think the film is too long. It's hard to pinpoint the scenes I'd remove, but I think it's at least 30 minutes too long.

This film stirred up memories of Jurassic Park for me. Not just in that it included things that looked like dinosaurs in a lush environment with orchestral scores, but that if I were 15 years younger this would be my perfect film... and that's kind of cool.

8/10

  On 1/12/2010 at 10:19 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/12/2010 at 8:57 AM, lumpenprol said:

I think the 3D glasses were chosen not only because they are new technology, but because they helped conceal the transitions between real and CG

 

 

enjoyed reading your review. I selected this part because i think it's essential to the film's enjoyment. Not only did the 3d glasses help conceal the transition from real to CGI but so does the plot element of him becoming an avatar. Cameron has mastered that a lot of filmmakers have been unable to pull off is isolating and perfecting to the best of his ability a special effect technique and building plot elements around it that make the effects seem more believable. Good example is the T-1000 in T2, the plot says he was made out of liquid metal. For the time CGI techniques were were capable of creating that kind of stylized hyper real metallic look, but other materials like stone or wood probably would look like obvious fakery.

it would have been awesome if the T1000 could only turn into wooden objects like chairs and cabinets

LOL, Avatar causing depression...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6y5YKFk2IE