James Cameron's Avatar

[Bini]

I was reading an article yesterday that they are thinking of bringing out 3D tvs for the home.

Yeh I posted about that earlier. There are already companies that make them.

Too bad we just bought a new TV less than a month ago and it's not 3D compatible, meh.

[pam]

Yeh I posted about that earlier. There are already companies that make them.

Too bad we just bought a new TV less than a month ago and it's not 3D compatible, meh.

Sorry Bini yes you did. I missed that when I was skimming through.

[miztrniceguy]

I thought this was a discussion of Jame's Facebook avatar.

[Guest]

3D is a gimmick, but it's a lucrative one. With the price of admission $5 more than the regular movie, and IMAX being even more, you don't think the studios are going to cash in? I am very disappointed at hearing about Harry Potter. It will distract from the story and make it cheesy. And if the only thing Avatar has going for it are cool special effects and really good 3D, then how good a movie is it really?

I don't agree with this Bytebear. 3D is not a gimmick. It is a NEW way of experiencing a movie. Okay, here's the analogy...

Since the release of Kinemacolor films by Charles Urban in 1908, movies experienced a technological advancement. The first Kinemacolor movie was "A Visit to the Seaside" and it commanded a hefty price. Kinemacolor petered out in 1914 because it was just waaay too expensive to build the theaters that are equipped with Kinemacolor capability and at that time, people were not spending the extra money needed. By 1912, only 300 theaters were Kinemacolor-equipped.

Was "A Visit to the Seaside" the very first colored film? Nope. Colored films was around since 1902 - where artists manually hand-tint each frame.

It wasn't until Techicolor corporation was established in 1918 that color movies started to become really popular. The Wizard of Oz is like the Avatar of today - wowing the people with the color transition - it was mind-boggling - and people were willing to pay the extra money for the Wizard of Oz.

Today, nobody expects to see black-and-white theaters anymore. It's just sooo... low tech!

Although, I cannot predict whether digital 3D is going to become the standard in the future, they are expensive to make right now. Film companies require digital 3D cameras in addition to the standard cameras. Theaters need to be equipped with a special projector and glasses to view them. Therefore, a 3D film is, understandably more expensive than regular films.

All 3D films come in 2D format. Otherwise, they won't be able to show them on DVD. Most theaters show a 3D movie in 2D format as well to give patrons the option.

But, Avatar's "Wizard of Oz" technological achievement is not the 3D format - it is the cgi. And THAT was very expensive to make. Okay, so Superman Returns cost almost as much as Avatar - but in those days cgi'ing was expensive - these days computer technology has advanced so much that cgi'ing has gone down in cost... unless you're trying to do it the Avatar way where you got real actors acting while simultaneously getting cgi'd from head to toe in motion including facial muscle movement.

Sorry, my geekiness is shining through...

[Tarnished]

I got inspired and decided to try to make the necklace that Neytiri wears in the movie, I just finished it tonight and put it up on my etsy account. Anyone interested can find it here.

Neytiri's Necklace by SlimEdge on Etsy

[AintNoCityBoy]

I can honestly say I am uninterested.

If it is anything like "The Last Samurai" I definately don't want to see it. Maybe whenever I feel like betraying the Human Race I'll give it a go, but until then, no thankyou.

[bytebear]

I don't agree with this Bytebear. 3D is not a gimmick. It is a NEW way of experiencing a movie. Okay, here's the analogy...

Since the release of Kinemacolor films by Charles Urban in 1908, movies experienced a technological advancement. The first Kinemacolor movie was "A Visit to the Seaside" and it commanded a hefty price. Kinemacolor petered out in 1914 because it was just waaay too expensive to build the theaters that are equipped with Kinemacolor capability and at that time, people were not spending the extra money needed. By 1912, only 300 theaters were Kinemacolor-equipped.

Was "A Visit to the Seaside" the very first colored film? Nope. Colored films was around since 1902 - where artists manually hand-tint each frame.

It wasn't until Techicolor corporation was established in 1918 that color movies started to become really popular. The Wizard of Oz is like the Avatar of today - wowing the people with the color transition - it was mind-boggling - and people were willing to pay the extra money for the Wizard of Oz.

Today, nobody expects to see black-and-white theaters anymore. It's just sooo... low tech!

Although, I cannot predict whether digital 3D is going to become the standard in the future, they are expensive to make right now. Film companies require digital 3D cameras in addition to the standard cameras. Theaters need to be equipped with a special projector and glasses to view them. Therefore, a 3D film is, understandably more expensive than regular films.

All 3D films come in 2D format. Otherwise, they won't be able to show them on DVD. Most theaters show a 3D movie in 2D format as well to give patrons the option.

But, Avatar's "Wizard of Oz" technological achievement is not the 3D format - it is the cgi. And THAT was very expensive to make. Okay, so Superman Returns cost almost as much as Avatar - but in those days cgi'ing was expensive - these days computer technology has advanced so much that cgi'ing has gone down in cost... unless you're trying to do it the Avatar way where you got real actors acting while simultaneously getting cgi'd from head to toe in motion including facial muscle movement.

Sorry, my geekiness is shining through...

Ok, but here's the problem. Yes CGI has improved in motion capture, and instant playback, but that is simply a production tool. Every year new innovations come out in cameras, rigging, lighting, etc. that make the process easier, but none of them make the product any better. I didn't see the CGI as visually groundbreaking, and found it as distracting as ever. A good example of this distraction is watching the muppet version of Yoda vs the CGI version. the muppet actually seems more real to me, the movements more natural. Things are getting better, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I just don't see this movie as being particularly groundbreaking. I think Titanic actually had better CGI for the simple fact that you didn't notice it. The technique you are describing is actually quite old. Rotoscoping was done on Disney films such as Snow White, where you took a live actor and simply sketched their position. But it ends up looking unnatural in animation, and Pixar is actually so proud that they dont used the technique that they put it in their credits. And that's one of the many problems with Avatar. They use a technique that looks artificial because the animated characters look too real but yet, animated, and therefore your mind has this juxtaposition of realism and cartoon that just ends up feeling creepy.

Edited January 31, 2010 by bytebear

[Guest]

Ok, but here's the problem. Yes CGI has improved in motion capture, and instant playback, but that is simply a production tool. Every year new innovations come out in cameras, rigging, lighting, etc. that make the process easier, but none of them make the product any better. I didn't see the CGI as visually groundbreaking, and found it as distracting as ever. A good example of this distraction is watching the muppet version of Yoda vs the CGI version. the muppet actually seems more real to me, the movements more natural. Things are getting better, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I just don't see this movie as being particularly groundbreaking. I think Titanic actually had better CGI for the simple fact that you didn't notice it. The technique you are describing is actually quite old. Rotoscoping was done on Disney films such as Snow White, where you took a live actor and simply sketched their position. But it ends up looking unnatural in animation, and Pixar is actually so proud that they dont used the technique that they put it in their credits. And that's one of the many problems with Avatar. They use a technique that looks artificial because the animated characters look too real but yet, animated, and therefore your mind has this juxtaposition of realism and cartoon that just ends up feeling creepy.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course... I can't start a debate on it since we both come from very different aspects of the experience - I mean, just from your experience of having muppet yoda being better than cgi-yoda - we're not on the same field.

I'm a programmer, so muppet yoda just doesn't even appear on my horizon.

Pixar doesn't use any version of rotoscopy because they are completely not live-action (okay, so Wall-E had certain live-action shots but they wanted original historical shots in the film) . They do not use films - they use computers. And that's the Pixar flavor of their own brand of magic which they are proud to tell you in their credits.

Although, I'm a huge fan of Pixar as well, I'm not as interested in Hollywood getting rid of actors as I am in making actors do grander things. That's the difference between Yoda/Buzz Lightyear and Gollum/Jake Sully. Two different classes of cgi.

And comparing Return of the Jedi's rotoscopic technology with Avatar's is the same as comparing color films in 1902 with Wizard of Oz.

In my opinion, Avatar succeeded in what it is trying to accomplish - to make the cgi fade in the background - including the 3D environment - that it just becomes part of this fantasy as a complete package. You almost forget you're watching 3D animation until you see the 2D version and you think, "hey, this doesn't look right.". Cameron succeeded in getting rid of the cartoon effect, in my opinion - which I've been trying to explain in my last few posts admiring Neytiri's hair.

Edited February 1, 2010 by anatess

[StrawberryFields]

I saw the movie just a few weeks ago and I really enjoyed it.:)

[bytebear]

You're entitled to your opinion, of course... I can't start a debate on it since we both come from very different aspects of the experience - I mean, just from your experience of having muppet yoda being better than cgi-yoda - we're not on the same field.

I'm a programmer, so muppet yoda just doesn't even appear on my horizon.

Pixar doesn't use any version of rotoscopy because they are completely not live-action (okay, so Wall-E had certain live-action shots but they wanted original historical shots in the film) . They do not use films - they use computers. And that's the Pixar flavor of their own brand of magic which they are proud to tell you in their credits.

Although, I'm a huge fan of Pixar as well, I'm not as interested in Hollywood getting rid of actors as I am in making actors do grander things. That's the difference between Yoda/Buzz Lightyear and Gollum/Jake Sully. Two different classes of cgi.

And comparing Return of the Jedi's rotoscopic technology with Avatar's is the same as comparing color films in 1902 with Wizard of Oz.

In my opinion, Avatar succeeded in what it is trying to accomplish - to make the cgi fade in the background - including the 3D environment - that it just becomes part of this fantasy as a complete package. You almost forget you're watching 3D animation until you see the 2D version and you think, "hey, this doesn't look right.". Cameron succeeded in getting rid of the cartoon effect, in my opinion - which I've been trying to explain in my last few posts admiring Neytiri's hair.

I'm a programmer too, and CGI Yoda sucks. And so did avatar. So, we agree to disagree. I saw the CGI as distracting and cartoonish particularly when interacting with live actors.

[Guest]

I'm a programmer too, and CGI Yoda sucks. And so did avatar. So, we agree to disagree. I saw the CGI as distracting and cartoonish particularly when interacting with live actors.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see anybody else out there accomplishing what Avatar has accomplished. How else can you make a movie with 9-foot humanoids without the geeky Star Trek make-up, know what I mean? There's just nothing comparable in my opinion, not today.

I'm sure in the not so far distant future (unless the world explodes in 2012 - bad movie, good cgi) we will see the Cameron-style implemented and refined more and more. I mean, the rotating still shot in the Matrix is almost ordinary now.

And also, I have to applaud actors who can make something out of nothing. In the entire Pandora scene, the actors had to make up everything in their heads. There was this movie with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law where in the whole movie, the entire environment - including the car - is cgi. Jude Law has always been a great actor and that movie just seals it. I'm not too sure about Gwyneth although she carried her own in it. It just amazes me how an actor can place themselves in the absent scene and produce a stellar performance like Zoe Saldana did.

[Blackmarch]

So this is hands down the best movie I have ever seen. I saw it in 3D, which was awesome, because they invented a new type of camera to better film 3D, as wel as new software to make the CG more realistic.

On top of that, it had a compelling story line and good character development. Some people compared it to the last samurai, because a warrior adopts his enemies beliefs and joins them against his old comrades.

But this had so much more. I was simply awestruck as this movie kept my interest the entire time. The action scenes were amazing, and there were times when you felt as though the action was happening to you (because of the 3D, objects would almost hit you).

I would recomend everyone go see this amazing film.

I also enjoyed this movie.. but keep in mind the last half of it is violent... while blood and guts are not fly ing everywhere (in fact you hardly see any blood in the whole movie), people are being shot up and munched or being stepped on.

One of my fave artists helped with the creature concepts (Barlowe). Id love to see this film in one of the spherical Imax theaters.

[Blackmarch]

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see anybody else out there accomplishing what Avatar has accomplished. How else can you make a movie with 9-foot humanoids without the geeky Star Trek make-up, know what I mean? There's just nothing comparable in my opinion, not today.

I'm sure in the not so far distant future (unless the world explodes in 2012 - bad movie, good cgi) we will see the Cameron-style implemented and refined more and more. I mean, the rotating still shot in the Matrix is almost ordinary now.

And also, I have to applaud actors who can make something out of nothing. In the entire Pandora scene, the actors had to make up everything in their heads. There was this movie with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law where in the whole movie, the entire environment - including the car - is cgi. Jude Law has always been a great actor and that movie just seals it. I'm not too sure about Gwyneth although she carried her own in it. It just amazes me how an actor can place themselves in the absent scene and produce a stellar performance like Zoe Saldana did.

You oughtta watch the original tron.. hehe same thing with the actors there, but less to use.

[Blackmarch]

I can honestly say I am uninterested.

If it is anything like "The Last Samurai" I definately don't want to see it. Maybe whenever I feel like betraying the Human Race I'll give it a go, but until then, no thankyou.

not really its more like anti-company... and its set up so that the audience sides with the natives for the most part.

[Bini]

Whoa.. We're still talking about Avatar! I heard on the radio yesterday about the group of people that call themselves "Avatarians" or something of that nature. Are some of you guys on here?

I won't argue with anyone that the graphics weren't spectacular. They absolutely were. But the story for me was la'em. Very lame and sappy. I maintain it's a cross between Fern Gully and The Last Samurai. I talked to hubby the other day about this movie again and he admitted that he didn't pay much attention to the storyline because he was too engrossed in the 3D eye-candy. LOL. He was "zoned in".

[Blackmarch]

Whoa.. We're still talking about Avatar! I heard on the radio yesterday about the group of people that call themselves "Avatarians" or something of that nature. Are some of you guys on here?

I won't argue with anyone that the graphics weren't spectacular. They absolutely were. But the story for me was la'em. Very lame and sappy. I maintain it's a cross between Fern Gully and The Last Samurai. I talked to hubby the other day about this movie again and he admitted that he didn't pay much attention to the storyline because he was too engrossed in the 3D eye-candy. LOL. He was "zoned in".

Story was fine, it wasn't epic... I think dances with wolves is closer- but it uses a story that plays on peoples heartstrings, so it's probably going to be more popular for that reason.

As for the 3d the Na'vi characters were amazing, as was the foliage. the animals while great weren't what pushed the CGI.

The animal design on the other hand was 10/10 (but then anything Barlowe has a hand in ends up being very realistic while very alien)

[FunkyTown]

HAHAH! Fern Gully! I knew I wasn't the only one to think that.

The whole movie, I wanted to shout out, "No! Tim Roth is going to come out and eat your tree. If you hear, 'Toxic Love', run away really fast!"

Whoa.. We're still talking about Avatar! I heard on the radio yesterday about the group of people that call themselves "Avatarians" or something of that nature. Are some of you guys on here?

I won't argue with anyone that the graphics weren't spectacular. They absolutely were. But the story for me was la'em. Very lame and sappy. I maintain it's a cross between Fern Gully and The Last Samurai. I talked to hubby the other day about this movie again and he admitted that he didn't pay much attention to the storyline because he was too engrossed in the 3D eye-candy. LOL. He was "zoned in".

[Bini]

^

Yes the story was just below the rim of mediocre.

I agree the animal/creature design is 10/10. I found them very imaginative and creative.

[Blackmarch]

^

Yes the story was just below the rim of mediocre.

I agree the animal/creature design is 10/10. I found them very imaginative and creative.

You ought to look up Douglas Wayne Barlowe's "Expedition".

Which was adapted for a TV special called "Alien World".

Altho looking back I didn't think Fern gully's story to be all that original either lol....

(but then most stories themes today aren't original anymore)

what i'd really like to see someone take on with cameron's level of skill is Robota, Foreigner, or Star Tide Rising.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Guest]

You oughtta watch the original tron.. hehe same thing with the actors there, but less to use.

TRON!!! One of my "great movies of all time"! Okay, I'm gonna show my age here... but when that movie came out, I was neck deep in desktop programming courses and I was just soooo amazed at their creativity in translating bits and bytes into people! My signature for the longest time had "end of line" quoted under it. :)

So, I showed that movie to my kids not too long ago and they were like - that's a video game? lol! But, hey, I love to play that bike game. Those were the days when you don't need some kind of vulcan hand-moves to control a game. Just move the joystick in 4 directions and push one button. Lots of times, there are only 2 joystick directions, and lots of times, there is no button! First time I played Street Fighter I hated it... I mean, it killed me having to time a side-to-side joystick motion with a push button just to get a measly sonic boom! Of course, now, I'm into rockband where you get to use your feet too...

Hey, they're remaking Tron. I'm not so sure this is a good idea. I always get nervous when they mess with my favorite movies...

By the way, my kids love to play the Avatar game on PS3 too. They've memorized all the names of flora and fauna in Pandora. Crazy kids.

Edited February 4, 2010 by anatess

[oats]

I am surprised that no one has discussed the parallel of the main character's adaption to the avatar technology with the audience's adaption to the RealD 3D effects of the movie.

The audience is taken on a 30 minute journey wherein the human protagonist and audience learn and experience new ways of feeling and sensing. The indigenous culture and manner of sensing, at first so foreign, eventually becomes familiar to the protagonist. By far the best 3D experience for all viewers, and the first 3D experience for many, we share a parallel journey as we are introduced to 3D visuals - the new step on the technological frontier, and the next big step in entertainment technology.

I watched for 10 minutes without the glasses. The story, dialogue and script were nothing new. Would be a hit without 3D but would not compel people to go back for a second watch. I literally got bored and wondered how I would endure 3 hours.

More of our senses are immersed in the 3D experience and our experience is made slightly more real because some feeling is incorporated. This is also a perfect fit with the movie and the way the indigenous people understand things. They understand things in a holistic way that involves feelings and an unspoken, unwritten understanding of the interdependencies that exist between all things. The movie reinforces our new found feel sense evoked by the 3D with the idea that understanding the world around us can also happen through feeling, and not only linear written scientific models.

It doesn't spew forth an agenda that white people are bad and natives are good. If you look closely it simply identifies why Native American descendants don't respond well to ideas born from Western world thought process. The two cultures have two completely different perspectives and methods of learning. They feel differently and think differently. Each has its strong points to understand and manipulate different situations. Neither is inherently better than another. There is something to learn from the movie but I'm quite sure the real intent is not to polarize or demonize individuals according to their cultural inheritances.

Two more points to this rant:

1. These 3D movies will eventually embrace realistic violence and pornographic material. You think kids watching 2D violence and porn causes problems and addictions? Wait until the edgier material starts popping out in 3D. Horror movies with ultra-realistic kill scenes in 3D? We've been treated to a treat with avatar, and the addiction potential of 3D from pretty landscapes alone is astounding. Wait until you mix it with the stuff that holds serious addiction potential.

2. The medium is the message :) The medium, in this case 3D, has a greater impact and influence on our actions and activities than the story of the movie or the words that the characters speak.

[MeIRL]

One man's view of Avatar.

[Blackmarch]

One man's view of Avatar.

ROFL

Been ages since i've read sluggy.

Edit to respond to the cartoon- i'd have to disagree.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Blackmarch