AVATAR - See it in 3D if you haven't! #1 Movie All-Time Domestic & Worldwide!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I suppose if one defines technological innovation as gimmicky. Which one totally could.

It's not a matter of the technological innovation, it's a matter of how it's used. If it's used well and in conjunction with a great story; brilliant. If it's all tech, and no substance; gimmicky. See Star Wars Episode 1.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's not a matter of the technological innovation, it's a matter of how it's used. If it's used well and in conjunction with a great story; brilliant. If it's all tech, and no substance; gimmicky. See Star Wars Episode 1.

See, not that I'm passionate either way. But I think why some people that are stoked for Avatar are getting so offended is the fact that a lot of the tech used in the making of the movie is allegedly 'revolutionary'. And then get pissed when people say it looks worse than Jurassic Park. But I do agree that story is key.

[Coach]

i just watched the trailer in HD and just about crapped my pants. Those effects look incredible.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by MattyC

i just watched the trailer in HD and just about crapped my pants. Those effects look incredible.

But what about the story?

[HPLovecraft]

Jurassic Park looked awesome. It still does, which is pretty crazy. That T-Rex scene when he's introduced and busts out of his paddock in the rain is mind-blowing, even today.

Does anyone know if there is a T-Rex busting out of his paddock scene in Avatar?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

But what about the story?

lol. I know that similar stories have been done. But I am still very much interested in seeing it. Looks pretty epic and badass

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Jurassic Park looked awesome. It still does, which is pretty crazy. That T-Rex scene when he's introduced and busts out of his paddock in the rain is mind-blowing, even today.

Does anyone know if there is a T-Rex busting out of his paddock scene in Avatar?

agreed, every time i watch Jurassic Park I can't believe that it was done in '93. It looks so incredible. The scene with the Rex chasing the jeep is awesome.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Jurassic Park looked awesome. It still does, which is pretty crazy. That T-Rex scene when he's introduced and busts out of his paddock in the rain is mind-blowing, even today.

Does anyone know if there is a T-Rex busting out of his paddock scene in Avatar?

Considering the confession thread was locked...Jurassic Park was a horrible example. Hell it looks a lot better than some newer movies. I really wanted to say the Gorn from Star Trek, but figured that I need to cut down the Trekkie references.

Originally Posted by MattyC

agreed, every time i watch Jurassic Park I can't believe that it was done in '93. It looks so incredible. The scene with the Rex chasing the jeep is awesome.

When Rex busts through the log thing, 7 year old YB lost his mind with glee.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by zamler

You've likely watched many movies and saw digital effects but did not even realize they were there.

I'm fully aware of the fact that there are digital effects in almost every single shot of any high-budget film made in the last 15 years or so. Most of the time it is totally obvious because digital effects are very hard to match to the reality they're inserted into: lighting/shadows, color, texture, focal depth, physics. When an object is really there you don't have to calculate any of that and don't run the risk of getting it wrong. It's like watching something where the audio is ever so slightly out of synch, and it's jarring. That's why I don't mind so much when something is completely computer animated, because at least then there is internal consistency. It's mixing the two techniques that becomes a real problem (see Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow).

Originally Posted by zamler

And to say that "a guy in a rubber suit, it will always look more real" is interesting, because unless you want to always see a character that can be played by a guy in a rubber suit, other methods are necessary.

What about puppets, animatronics, stop-motion models? They're real objects, they behave like real objects, and can do just about everything that computer animation can do.

Originally Posted by zamler

Movie making is about advancing, moving forward with new ways to tell a story. You can tell a bad story using special effects, you can tell a bad story using visual effects. Or you can tell a great story using whatever is available to you.

You can also ruin an otherwise perfectly good movie with bad effects, whether they're digital or not, especially when the central premise of the movie IS the effects, which it appears to be in the case of Avatar. It's easy to overlook one short effect that isn't quite right in a 2 hour film, but when more than an hour of it is entirely effects-driven, if anything in those effects is not 100% correct (and really, it can't be, no matter how great the technology is) that's a lot of disconcerting moments that add up to an unenjoyable movie experience.

Originally Posted by zamler

And remember with Gollum, the acting you see in the character is the performance of Andy Serkis, the digital imagery is not there just for the sake of using digital effects. The tech that was jused to capture the performance for Gollum has been taken about 20 steps further in Avatar. The digital characters are an extremely accurate representation of the actual performances by the actors. So even if the digital images are not perfect, the performances will be true to the original actors.

I was actually going to point this out. The reason Gollum works is because there is a real actor behind just about every aspect of the character. But through the entire film(s), and especially after watching the "making of" specials, I really think it would have been better if they'd just let Andy Sirkis do it in makeup. If the effects are, as you say "an extremely accurate representation of the actual performances by the actors" why do they even need to be "representations?" Can't they just be the actual performances? Wouldn't that be better? Am I getting too post-modern?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's not a matter of the technological innovation, it's a matter of how it's used. If it's used well and in conjunction with a great story; brilliant. If it's all tech, and no substance; gimmicky. See Star Wars Episode 1.

I agree. Just because the technology is innovative doesn't mean the movie will be substantively interesting (it won't be) or entertaining (it probably will be).

I guess if blockbuster movies are your thing, then James Cameron is the man. But, to me, I roll my eyes everytime he "advances" moviemaking while failing to take any risks in the story and instead follows paint-by-numbers storyingtelling.

[Coach]

I like how everyone is crapping on the story of a movie that doesnt come out for a month and a half. IMO when you see the movie, you can comment on the story in any way you please. Until then, forming in-depth opinions on a movie with only a trailer as reference is pretty ridiculous i think. Its like saying a book is going to suck/rock just by reading the back cover

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

I'm fully aware of the fact that there are digital effects in almost every single shot of any high-budget film made in the last 15 years or so.

If you want to see a film that has extensive CG but does not draw any attention to itself, watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. There is nothing "obvious" at all, and it would have been impossible to film otherwise. Some neat info here (video).

Another good example is Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Mans Chest. The Davy Jones character is digital but it is impossible to tell. Most people had no idea and assumed it was conventional makeup. Actually the Pirates trilogy used extensive digital effects, the cheer number of characters would be absolutely impossible to do conventionally, especially the last two films.

What about puppets, animatronics, stop-motion models? They're real objects, they behave like real objects, and can do just about everything that computer animation can do.

How do these methods behave like real objects? They don't at all, they have to be manipulated to simulate motion, physics, collision etc. and the believability is completely dependent on the artistry. As for them being able to "do just about everything that computer animation can do" this is laughable. Let's take T2, you think the T1000 could have been done with mechanical effects? There are thousands of other examples. On that note, J. Cameron used both digital and mechanical effects for the Terminator films.

I was actually going to point this out. The reason Gollum works is because there is a real actor behind just about every aspect of the character. But through the entire film(s), and especially after watching the "making of" specials, I really think it would have been better if they'd just let Andy Sirkis do it in makeup.

Gollum would have looked ridiculous if it was just a guy in makeup, it would have destroyed the film and everyone would have just laughed at every scene he was in. Do you really think they would not have done a character like Gollum using conventional makeup if they could have? It would have saved a ton of money for starters. You don't put much faith in film makers to use whatever tools are best for the job do you?

As for Avatar, you are slagging off the movie before you ever see it, seems odd to me. Do you have some kind of hate for CG in films? Digital effects are just another tool in the arsenal of the film maker. It is up to that film maker to use whatever tools available to realize the script, and to do it as believable as possible. Maybe you've seen too many Micheal Bay movies?

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by zamler

Let's take T2, you think the T1000 could have been done with mechanical effects? There are thousands of other examples. On that note, J. Cameron used both digital and mechanical effects for the Terminator films.

Tell me, honestly, what makes the T1000 such a compelling villain in T2? Is it Robert Patrick's wonderfully menacing delivery and physical acting? or is it a shiny CGI blob? It's the actor, and it's the story. The CGI is just a gewgaw. Cameron did just fine in the first Terminator movie with no CGI at all.

Originally Posted by zamler

You don't put much faith in film makers to use whatever tools are best for the job do you?

Nope, I don't. Because most of the production decisions for big-budget Hollywood pictures are all made by marketing suits who only care about the first weekend gross.

Originally Posted by zamler

As for Avatar, you are slagging off the movie before you ever see it, seems odd to me. Do you have some kind of hate for CG in films? Digital effects are just another tool in the arsenal of the film maker. It is up to that film maker to use whatever tools available to realize the script, and to do it as believable as possible. Maybe you've seen too many Micheal Bay movies?

I've only seen half of one Michael Bay movie (Armageddon), walked out because the filmmaker's grasp of physics was so bad. And I wasn't slagging on Avatar specifically, I'm slagging on the trend these days to overlay CGI on everything, just to impress the gullible masses who seem to love bright shiny things that don't add anything substantive to the overall product. Good actors and effects crews can do a lot more on their own, so fricking let them! Predator, Alien, Terminator ... if any of them were made now you know they'd CGI the hell out of them, and would they be any more compelling? No.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Nope, I don't. Because most of the production decisions for big-budget Hollywood pictures are all made by marketing suits who only care about the first weekend gross.

I highly doubt anyone in Hollywood tells James Cameron what to do.

[Stumptown]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I highly doubt anyone in Hollywood tells James Cameron what to do.

Studio movie, studio controls the budget and has final say on every dime that's spent on it. Unless he became head of 20th Century Fox and I didn't hear about it, someone's still telling him how to make his movies (Rupert Murdoch, even). Though he's probably got more control now than he did when the studio hacked and slashed The Abyss into that mess that was released (the director's cut was much better).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

Studio movie, studio controls the budget and has final say on every dime that's spent on it. Unless he became head of 20th Century Fox and I didn't hear about it, someone's still telling him how to make his movies (Rupert Murdoch, even). Though he's probably got more control now than he did when the studio hacked and slashed The Abyss into that mess that was released (the director's cut was much better).

Lightstorm is James Cameron's studio. And yes technically you're right, but I imagine he has a large amount leverage in this situation. For example:

Head of Fox: Hey Jim, so we didn't really like your first cut of Avatar

JC: Hey Studio Head, how about I do whatever the f*** i want or you don't get to release a James Cameron movie and make about a billion dollars.....sound goood?

[awildermode]

great arguments, guys. but it depends on who is in the kitchen and how the chef prepares the meals.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by awildermode

great arguments, guys. but it depends on who is in the kitchen and how the chef prepares the meals.

We're talking about movies not food.

[awildermode]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

We're talking about movies not food.

i want to see them turn the conversation to food

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by zamler

If you want to see a film that has extensive CG but does not draw any attention to itself, watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. There is nothing "obvious" at all, and it would have been impossible to film otherwise. Some neat info here (video).

That is a really impressive video. This is the method of facial movement integration that made Incredible Hulk look so good. It was Brad Pitt and Edward Norton's performances imported into the movie. This is what is going to be happening with Avatar, and I expect that it will be every bit as impressive, if not more-so, than what we've seen already.