Jump to content
IGNORED

James Cameron Returns with Avatar


Vemsie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just remembered the most emotionally engaging bit of Avatar:

It's when Sigourney Weaver says 'where's my god damn cigarette' and then someone hands her a cigarette and she smoked it.

Man that made me want a cigarette.

The rest was pish.

(Sorry for DP!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just remembered the most emotionally engaging bit of Avatar:

It's when Sigourney Weaver says 'where's my god damn cigarette' and then someone hands her a cigarette and she smoked it.

Man that made me want a cigarette.

The rest was pish.

That part made me cringe tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those people who dont see why this is a revolution in cinema, heres an interesting interview with Jimmy C talking about some of the tech:

Thanks for posting that! Really interesting - especially the bits where he's explaining why scanning faces at higher and higher resolutions (as the Matrix sequels and Superman Returns did) isn't the right direction to go down, and where he describes the problems they had stopping the set lighting from interfering with the motion capture markers.

I'm such a geek. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those people who dont see why this is a revolution in cinema, heres an interesting interview with Jimmy C talking about some of the tech:

I'm about halfway through this.

JC is talking about the "rig" and the 9-12 month process of getting the actors represented correctly on/in it. I'm a tad confused about the references to the animators and sliders. I thought that the head-mount was capturing the detail in the face, which was being used directly in the CGI model of the actor's head. It sounds like there is something else going on.

The "Making Of Avatar" is going to be way more interesting (to me) than the actual film.

Great interview so far too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*SPOILERS*

Very disappointed, despite loving James Cameron.

I enjoyed the 3D. Thank God he avoided the annoyance of shooting shit at the camera and making me flinch constantly, like most 3D movies do. The tech was most impressive in the shots with little movement, when characters are talking in an average room. Suddenly I was *in* the room. The 3D had less impact on the fantastical scenes, because they lacked any reality. I couldn't compare them to 2D movies.

I also liked the inclusion of a disabled main character, (even though he ditches his "useless" disabled body) and the human world seemed very tangible. Every prop seemed like it could actually work. The main villain was very charismatic. The final 30 minutes were exciting.

On the bad side: The film dragged, there was at least an hour of fat in the middle. I get the idea - he likes the aliens, he's falling in love, don't take 20 minutes for a 5 minute scene (the one where he gets his bird in particular) just so you can pimp the scenery. There was less character development than an average Disney movie. The romance seemed tacked on. Tons of awkward dialogue, crow-barred exposition, and Iraq/9/11 allegories are old news. The aliens seemed far too human. I've already seen plenty of 'exploit the noble natives' movies by now.

At one moment I thought the planet was going to kill the humans and the aliens, and show how nature ultimately wins. That would've redeemed the film somewhat. Instead the noble aliens murder the humans instead and suddenly we have peace. Plus, what's to stop the humans coming back with a bigger army and nuking the God-damned site from orbit?

As for the special-effects, there was nothing that made me go "wow". Gollum was impressive because he acted alongside other human actors and held his own. When everything on screen is (presumably) CG, it doesn't have a reference point, it's just a cutscene. There was a scene at the end where she picks up his human body, that was one of the most impressive because it shows a CG character interacting with a real person.

Not worth the 12 year wait. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno, man, the facial animations were a step beyond anything I'd seen before, but maybe that's not a revolution, more a significant refinement of a technique. I was definitely impressed.

I thought the most interesting part of that Cameron interview was where he said "It's not photo-reality, it's a CG simulation of the false reality of Hollywood movie making", which is how I tend to judge the effects in films like these, put into words better than I could've.

As for the 3D, I liked it. Although, like surround sound, I find it hard to appreciate until it's not there, so I'll probably have to see it again in 2D before I make any real comment on its worth. I didn't have any of the visual problems some people are describing, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest though, it was a crap film with unflinchingly terrible dialogue and the entire point was that it looked nice. Imagine it looked like a blurry slice of shit (ie a crap screener copy is the closest I can relate it to) and tell me you'd still think it was anywhere near as good.

The whole film was dumber than shit, and the dialogue was utterly horrible.

3D also needs to shuffle off until they can perfect it. My eyes LOVED some bits of it, but other scenes were like some hideous focus-loss nightmare, with my eyes wondering where the fuck they were supposed to look.

However, I still enjoyed the thing. It was utter fluff, with lots of 'splosions and stuff, and a 3D gimmick that kind of worked sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sad to say, that although I did enjoy this, it's little more than a monumental technical exercise. A real shame, as the concept is a good one and the director is highly talented, but it hurtles too far into ridiculous cartoon fantasy for my liking. The 3D is also highly flawed. Sometimes it works really well, much of the rest of the time it's really not that great at all. I lost count of the number of times I was seeing double images of things just because they weren't in focus. The clincher for me throughout the whole film was that I kept feeling like there was little reason for me to go and see it at the cinema again. The motion capture stuff on the Na'vi is really brilliant, but the monsters were mostly uninspired rubbish. I was expecting something a bit more interesting from Horner on the soundtrack as well. Some of the exposition is really dumb too. You definitely expect more from someone of Cameron's calibre. Given the number of years the script has had to gestate, it's unforgivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck off until you have something to add, Valiant.

It's an entirely valid question!

I want to know if it being pants is the general consensus?

Also how do I view your obscenities in 3D?

Do some of you have a financial investment in this film or something being so defensive against any slight?

fuck_3d_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valiant, if you bothered to read the thread you'd see that I've voiced criticisms of the film myself, so don't start with that bollocks. You've been acting like a tit in this folder for a while now, so don't ask leading, trolling questions like that and we'll get on fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like these big event type films, but have pretty much hated all 3D films I have sat through, finding the 2D versions to have much more vibrant colours and also don't make my eyes hurt. It just seems we're having to put up with imperfect technology that's been rushed out as studios are shitting themselves that cinema is on its knees. Is that unfair? I don't know what I'm on about in all honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.50 quid here! think that was partly down to it being a lunchtime viewing though...and it was ACE, only 20 odd people watching it! No kids! Great viewing.

So the film...

I can completely emphasize with people who will hate this film, it really is like watching a long videogame cutscene. Even though the plot would of been incredible back in the 80's it somehow feels like you've seen this before. It's very formulated and predictable, no surprises at all. Usually this can be ok if it's convicted as well as it is here but given the background behind the movie it does feel like you've been short changed.

I should hate this film but I enjoyed it, it never got dull and is well paced. I liked the characters (even the almost panto villian) good score oh and the environment is lush. The character designs for the animals seemed a bit week and dull but the actual Navi I think are great! I love how every one of them has their own characteristics and shapes.

Forget it's the most expensive movie ever made, forget it was first thought up in the 80's, forget James Cameron directed it, forget Terminator and Aliens...and you might just enjoy it!

3D aspect, some parts worked really well and some didn't. Hopefully over time directors will work out what works and what doesn't. Given what Morrius said I did indeed play around with the glasses and indeed they do make the film slightly darker and lose a bit of saturation. I wonder if they give more brightness + saturation to the 3D one to balance it with the original?

Also, I think if you push the glasses near to your eyes as possible you get a less blurred result. It seems to intensify the 3D effect the further away from your eyes they are but as a result you get more motion blur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.