James Cameron's Avatar (2009) [Archive] - Page 4

megladon8

11-07-2009, 10:19 PM

No offense meg, but it seems your best counterargument comes down to "not really". I've watched this trailer dozens of times and the two gifs I posted a few pages back definitely do NOT look like plastic. You can see the marks in the skin, the veins pulsating through and all the attentive detail to make it seem like a believable creature. What exactly constitutes "proper weight" from you?

My replies of "not really" were in response to similarly short-worded replies.

You could see the skin marks and pulsating veins in The Incredible Hulk, too...but it still looked like CGI.

Proper weight is something I have seen very rarely in movies. In the trailer for Avatar, their hair doesn't move or swing the way real hair behaves, their jumps seem ever-so-slightly loftier than the human characters, etc.

It's all these small details that lead to that wonderful place called the "Uncanny Valley". Yes, the CGI is really, really damn close to being realistic...but it's just not quite there yet, and for some reason that small, itty-bitty disparity makes all the difference.

This GIF you posted (spoiler-tagged to save room)...

http://imagehostbank.com/images/972_avatar1b.gif

...is indeed freaking astounding. If the whole movie looks like that, then I'd say "Wow, we have reached a whole new level in what CGI can do."

But unless the trailers are not demonstrative of the finished product, well, the whole movie doesn't have that level of quality.

Fair enough?

Dukefrukem

11-07-2009, 11:31 PM

Yeah, the enviornments are completely believable. However, since it's impossible, we know we're looking at a special effect.

That's how I feel too. Same goes with the aliens.

Raiders

11-08-2009, 01:31 AM

At least they don't look like a SNES game, like District 9's CG.

Is this serious? For a $30M budget, I thought the design and execution in that film were downright impeccable.

I have to admit, this thread and comments like 8's make me realize how vastly more interested you all are in technical aspects than I am.

number8

11-08-2009, 07:48 AM

Is this serious? For a $30M budget, I thought the design and execution in that film were downright impeccable.

Not really. They look like pixels.

Morris Schæffer

11-08-2009, 09:48 AM

Not really.

And I think the environments look incredible. It's just the characters that, well, still look like CGI - plastic-y and without proper weight.

I see what you mean. There's a sheen to CGI characters that isn't all that hard to miss. Even the totally awesome Gollem had it, but he was so well written that it didn't matter. I think we all want our epics to have a tangible human component and perhaps that's why we tolerated Gollem, precisely because he wasn't the lead. Sam, Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn were. In that sense, Avatar will offer up a considerable challenge for viewers. Accepting a completely CGI character as the protagonist. Nonetheless, I think you're laying your dislike on a bit too thick, what with the Pixar comparisons.

Here's another question. If creatures like Gollem actually existed in our world, and we would all be oblivious to the idea of special effects and the folks making them, would we have no trouble accepting them as photorealistic?

EDIT: Sorry, a similar point was already made by others prior to me posting. It's all gonna be in the writing. Cameron had better deliver in that area or shit will hit the fan.

Qrazy

11-08-2009, 05:05 PM

Here's another question. If creatures like Gollem actually existed in our world, and we would all be oblivious to the idea of special effects and the folks making them, would we have no trouble accepting them as photorealistic?

We would still have trouble accepting them because they just aren't photorealistic yet. The Avatar characters aren't either nor are the flying crafts or the environments. If someone were to fully CGI a human being right now I don't think it would look photorealistic.

[ETM]

11-08-2009, 06:08 PM

Whz is "Gollem" seemingly easier to spell than "Gollum"? I see that mistake all the time.

BuffaloWilder

11-08-2009, 06:10 PM

*insert bad sex pun about the lead catgirl here*

I'd give her some catnip, if you know what I mean.

By which I mean my penis.

Morris Schæffer

11-08-2009, 07:33 PM

;216347']Whz is "Gollem" seemingly easier to spell than "Gollum"? I see that mistake all the time.

I get this wrong all the time and I think you corrected me before on this. :)

Oh well, it isn't as bad as Steven Speilburg, Ian McKellan or Wolfgang Peterson.:D

Dukefrukem

11-09-2009, 04:08 PM

OS ANGELES — Can a movie studio make money on a film based on an original and unfamiliar story, with no Hollywood superstars, a vanishing DVD market and a price tag approaching $500 million?

NYTIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?_r=1)

After reading this article, I now have doubts this movie will succeed.

5 films have toppled $250 mil (domestic) the past year,

Star Trek, the Hangover, TransSUCKers 2, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Up,

[ETM]

11-09-2009, 05:20 PM

I now have doubts this movie will succeed.

Depends on what you mean by "succeed". It will definitely get the money back, I have no doubt about that. It may not turn in a huge profit, but Avatar is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) motives for the introduction of 3D screens all over the world, and Cameron is using it to promote his own technology which will only get more refined over time, and the basis for future projects by other filmmakers, which will be Cameron's cash cow for years to come. I see this particular project as a doorway into a whole new segment, but not necessarily a smash hit revolution that is expected. No matter what, it's not going to turn people, studios and directors off of 3D and motion capture.

Grouchy

11-09-2009, 06:52 PM

Yeah, the enviornments are completely believable. However, since it's impossible, we know we're looking at a special effect.

Consider Zodiac, where a good amount of the city is CGI. I didn't even know it until I saw that special effects special.
This is the key for me. No matter how much CGI evolves, we'll never be able to look at a dragon and consider it photorealistic. It's more a logical limitation than anything else.

Dukefrukem

11-09-2009, 07:00 PM

;216605']Depends on what you mean by "succeed". It will definitely get the money back, I have no doubt about that. It may not turn in a huge profit, but Avatar is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) motives for the introduction of 3D screens all over the world, and Cameron is using it to promote his own technology which will only get more refined over time, and the basis for future projects by other filmmakers, which will be Cameron's cash cow for years to come. I see this particular project as a doorway into a whole new segment, but not necessarily a smash hit revolution that is expected. No matter what, it's not going to turn people, studios and directors off of 3D and motion capture.

Well I'm worried for Cameron that people just won't be that interested in this movie. Will it make $250 mil domestically? Let's take bets.

number8

11-09-2009, 07:11 PM

Domestically? I have my doubts.

Internationally? Nothing to worry about.

Qrazy

11-09-2009, 10:10 PM

[ETM]

11-09-2009, 10:23 PM

It's the same with TV ratings... I go over to tvbythenumbers to check out the numbers for the shows I watch, and everyone's throwing predictions around.

Dukefrukem

11-09-2009, 11:03 PM

Man I can't stand predicting movie box office results. It reminds me of RT when people like Red Beard and others would burst into the thread and announce some arbitrary shit as pure fact... 'This movie will make exactly 200-210 mil first two weekends, then taper off at 400 mil over the next 2 months.'

Didn't know it was such a sore spot jeeze.

Henry Gale

11-10-2009, 01:24 AM

It looks like Fox thinks they have a Pixar movie too:

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

Once again, the new footage looks pretty incredible. Especially at 1:03 which looks like once of the first things we saw as production art. And guys, it's THE GREATEST ADVENTURE OF ALL TIME. Not sure I was aware.

megladon8

11-10-2009, 01:39 AM

The voice over was freaking awful in that trailer. Between that and the music, it really did feel like a trailer for a Disney movie.

"Welcome to a place beyond your imagination, where wonder lives...and adventure rules!"

[ETM]

11-10-2009, 01:39 AM

Some really nice footage there, but WTF?!

megladon8

11-10-2009, 01:41 AM

;216808']Some really nice footage there, but WTF?!

What do you mean, "WTF?!"

It's a land of adventure! Where adventure rules all! In the greatest adventure of all time!

Dead & Messed Up

11-10-2009, 01:42 AM

[ETM]

11-10-2009, 01:56 AM

What do you mean, "WTF?!"

It's a land of adventure! Where adventure rules all! In the greatest adventure of all time!

Let's dance!!!

Qrazy

11-10-2009, 04:25 AM

Didn't know it was such a sore spot jeeze.

Ah sorry I didn't mean to sound too vehement or anything. It's not that talking about it bothers me that much it's the proclamation of hypothesized results as if they were fact that I find absolutely absurd.

When people start being like... 'No dude, you're a fool for thinking it will make 110 million. It's obviously going to make 107 million.'

Morris Schæffer

11-10-2009, 09:16 PM

KK2.0

11-11-2009, 09:26 PM

regarding realism, I guess the Navi will never look believable since they resemble human beings and CGI humanoids hardly work, unless it's something like Benjamin Button where they could focus only on the face of one character instead of tons of different creatures.

But IMO, they look damn good already and i'm pretty sure it will take a few minutes into the film to suspend desbelief and forget the whole CGI real-not real issue. Facial animations look very natural, an obvious extension of Weta's beautiful work with Gollum and King Kong.

NYTIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?_r=1)

After reading this article, I now have doubts this movie will succeed.

from the arcticle

Despite the estimated half-billion dollars spent on its production and marketing, “Avatar” may carry surprisingly little financial risk for Fox’s parent company, the News Corporation, even if it disappoints. That is because of shifting industry economics, reliance on outside investors and help from a network of allied companies and in-house business units.

it seems they actually knew it was a bit of a risky project and decided to protect themselves. So, no worries i guess.

based on this, i wonder how long it will take for blockbuster budgets to reach the billion mark. :P

number8

11-13-2009, 03:04 AM

Heh. Dances with Smurfs.

KK2.0

11-13-2009, 03:23 PM

extended trailer with a few new shots http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PXbwNjT-lM

Dances with Smurfs.

:lol: i'm stealing this

number8

11-13-2009, 05:12 PM

:lol: i'm stealing this

South Park.

Grouchy

11-13-2009, 07:08 PM

South Park.
Too late, I already repped you.

Morris Schæffer

11-14-2009, 03:08 PM

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3153/1920x1440jack.jpg

Looks pretty photorealistic in still pictures.

Dukefrukem

11-15-2009, 02:49 AM

i agree

Kurosawa Fan

11-15-2009, 02:51 AM

The stills look amazing. When they're in motion they lose a lot. Judging solely by the trailers, that is.

Dukefrukem

11-15-2009, 02:56 AM

I don't agree

megladon8

11-15-2009, 05:32 AM

The stills look amazing. When they're in motion they lose a lot. Judging solely by the trailers, that is.

Yep.

Even those GIF's that were posted a while back looked great - just little 1-2 second clips.

But full scenes, the "photorealism" comes and gos.

Dead & Messed Up

11-16-2009, 11:07 PM

People advocating the realism of CGI should be hereafter disqualified from using still pictures.

KK2.0

11-16-2009, 11:20 PM

The CGI looks fine, can't say i love the design, though.

If they used makeup instead of CGI, i'm afraid the movie would look like that campy 80's musical, Cats.

lovejuice

11-17-2009, 09:08 AM

If they used makeup instead of CGI, i'm afraid the movie would look like that campy 80's musical, Cats.
that'll be awesome!

Dukefrukem

11-18-2009, 08:21 PM

If anyone wants to watch 4 min of Avatar, click here. (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43118)

megladon8

11-18-2009, 08:55 PM

The CGI looks fine, can't say i love the design, though.

If they used makeup instead of CGI, i'm afraid the movie would look like that campy 80's musical, Cats.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I'd love to see James Cameron's Cats.

KK2.0

11-19-2009, 02:17 PM

I'd love to see James Cameron's Cats.

:lol:

that's why i love this place

[ETM]

11-19-2009, 09:29 PM

People advocating the realism of CGI should be hereafter disqualified from using still pictures.

Not if the stills are actual screencaps and not renders.

Dead & Messed Up

11-19-2009, 09:45 PM

;218866']Not if the stills are actual screencaps and not renders.

Even actual screencaps say nothing about the consistency of the character from frame to frame or the quality of motion, the latter of which continues to be the defining problem with computer-generated imagery: generating realistic movement from interpolated motion.

So, as I said, stills should not be allowed in defense of realism of CG. CG is about more than a single pretty image.

Winston*

11-19-2009, 09:55 PM

The simple act of seeing the man opening his mouth causes considerable pleasure.
Post of the thread.

megladon8

11-19-2009, 11:33 PM

Even actual screencaps say nothing about the consistency of the character from frame to frame or the quality of motion, the latter of which continues to be the defining problem with computer-generated imagery: generating realistic movement from interpolated motion.

So, as I said, stills should not be allowed in defense of realism of CG. CG is about more than a single pretty image.

Rep.

[ETM]

11-19-2009, 11:48 PM

So, as I said, stills should not be allowed in defense of realism of CG. CG is about more than a single pretty image.

There is quite a lot to be discerned from CGI stills, especially the behavior of virtual "lenses". When the movie takes you so close to a CGI character that you can see pores in the skin, a whole lot of the realism comes from photographing it correctly: depth of field, motion blur, reflections, materials... No one's saying it's enough, but "banning" stills is just ridiculous in this context.

megladon8

11-20-2009, 01:01 AM

Just watched the four minute featurette.

*yawn*

Dead & Messed Up

11-20-2009, 02:14 AM

;218891']There is quite a lot to be discerned from CGI stills, especially the behavior of virtual "lenses". When the movie takes you so close to a CGI character that you can see pores in the skin, a whole lot of the realism comes from photographing it correctly: depth of field, motion blur, reflections, materials... No one's saying it's enough, but "banning" stills is just ridiculous in this context.

I know banning stills is ridiculous. I was explaining through an extreme, and I maintain that my central point is correct.

Henry Gale

11-20-2009, 04:47 AM

I don't know if anyone saw the full scene that got posted and pulled everywhere a day or two ago (that seemed to have been taken from Xbox Live somehow), but that definitely has me very sure that the film will be, at least in what it attempts to do for sensory and entertainment purposes, quite marvelous. There's a lot of silly dialogue, typical action twists and plays to expectations, but the pacing, the movement of the camera that isn't really there, and every bit of the visual landscape is completely enthralling in the footage. It really breezed by and left me pretty excited.

Derek

11-20-2009, 04:58 AM

Post of the thread.

If you don't put this in your sig, I will.

megladon8

11-20-2009, 10:11 PM

Fox is finally kicking the advertising machine into gear!

It's...uh...an Avatar-themed episode of "Bones" (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/11/20/bones-avatar-promo-fox/)???

...

:|

Dead & Messed Up

11-20-2009, 10:30 PM

Fox is finally kicking the advertising machine into gear!

It's...uh...an Avatar-themed episode of "Bones" (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/11/20/bones-avatar-promo-fox/)???

...

:|

What's wrong, Meg? Do you have a bone to pick with Cameron?

Is it his fault the marketing team hasn't boned up on advertising?

At least you're making no bones about your displeasure.

:pritch:

Watashi

11-20-2009, 11:03 PM

I told you we would receive a bombardment of advertising in these two months leading in. Fox isn't stupid.

If anything, the South Park episodes helps Avatar in the long run.

megladon8

11-20-2009, 11:05 PM

Too little too late.

I still don't really know anyone outside of followers of the movie industry who have heard of it.

[ETM]

11-20-2009, 11:10 PM

I still don't really know anyone outside of followers of the movie industry who have heard of it.

You need more friends and acquaintances. Everyone around me is buzzing about it, regardless of background. Also, you are aware that the game is being released on all platforms on Dec. 1st?

Watashi

11-20-2009, 11:13 PM

My dad who is movie illiterate and sees maybe two films a year in theaters (mainly Clint Eastwood movies) is dying to see this movie.

megladon8

11-20-2009, 11:21 PM

;219085']You need more friends and acquaintances. Everyone around me is buzzing about it, regardless of background. Also, you are aware that the game is being released on all platforms on Dec. 1st?

Yes I am, and it looks quite awful.

Raiders

11-21-2009, 01:52 AM

Maybe the networks in Canada haven't adapted the TV spots? I've seen about ten in the past couple weeks and people around me are certainly building up an awareness.

Derek

11-21-2009, 02:11 AM

I have heard all of one person mentionit at work and most people here are aware of the major new releases.

Derek

11-21-2009, 02:12 AM

It's...uh...an Avatar-themed episode of "Bones" (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/11/20/bones-avatar-promo-fox/)???

Fox isn't stupid.

These two statements seem to conflict with one another.

number8

11-21-2009, 03:45 AM

Yeah, it's definitely starting to catch on. I've been hearing people talk about it more, or at least asking what it is and why it's supposedly a big deal. That's a good thing.

The South Park episode was eeriely timed. It coincided with the exact week the marketing kicked in. I know they weren't paid off to do that, and they were essentially making fun of its premise, but it did help get the buzz rolling. Strange.

Ezee E

11-21-2009, 05:30 AM

Yeah, a few people at both my jobs have asked me about it. "What's this Avatar all about?"

And they seem to know James Cameron as well.

Now... will it do New Moon business?

eternity

11-22-2009, 07:05 PM

Everyone I hear is just stuck on "eww blue people loook awful". But...it's still everyone.

Rowland

11-22-2009, 11:49 PM

I still think this looks stupid, and I've never heard a single person bring it up in conversation or even in passing. *shrug*

MadMan

11-23-2009, 12:25 AM

Still very unsure if this will actually be a good movie, but hey it enables me to crack "This is what happens when the Blue Men group are allowed to procreate" jokes. Also my opinion of 3D hasn't changed: that its a gimmick.

number8

11-23-2009, 01:28 AM

it enables me to crack "This is what happens when the Blue Men group are allowed to procreate" jokes

Why would you do this.

Spinal

11-23-2009, 01:54 AM

I still think this looks stupid, and I've never heard a single person bring it up in conversation or even in passing.

This is where I'm at.

MadMan

11-23-2009, 01:55 AM

Why would you do this.Boredom, mostly.

Dukefrukem

11-23-2009, 02:12 AM

There was a good 60 minutes piece on Avatar tonight. Are people still thinking this movie isn't being promoted well?? The only thing that was missing from the segment was a RELEASE DATE!

Dukefrukem

11-23-2009, 07:28 PM

Wryan

11-23-2009, 07:56 PM

The trailer was in front of 2012, and people responded well to it.

The trailer I mean.

Fezzik

11-23-2009, 08:07 PM

There was a good 60 minutes piece on Avatar tonight. Are people still thinking this movie isn't being promoted well?? The only thing that was missing from the segment was a RELEASE DATE!

Yeah, that was a really good segment.

The best part of it for me, though, was the reaction of my very opinionated, holier-than-thou mother, when Safer commented about Cameron declaring himself "King of the World" after Titanic's Oscar Sweep.

She sneered and said. "Who declares themselves King? Arrogant bastard."

And no, she's never seen Titanic. :lol:

KK2.0

11-23-2009, 09:09 PM

and here it is (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43171)

nice feature with tons of footage, this is definitely looking like Jim Cameron's Star Wars, i'm just hoping for a compelling film to back the special effects.

Morris Schæffer

11-25-2009, 10:54 AM

Abbreviated thoughts on the score by UK's Empire Magazine:

Deep in the bowels of 20th Century Fox, we got a chance to listen to the most anticipated score of 2009: James Horner’s music for James Cameron’s Avatar.

As you would imagine — and even on the tiny speakers we heard them on — the music is huge in scope and heart. Mirroring the film’s dynamic of technology vs. the spiritual, the music splits between synthesised and acoustic instruments, the entire orchestra getting a thorough workout: everything from South American instrumentation to solo violin, choral chanting to driving percussion gets a chance to shine.

Reteaming with Cameron for the third time after Aliens and Titanic, Horner’s score flits between shimmering enchantment (the seven-minute Pure Spirits Of The Forest; The Bioluminiscence Of The Night), rousing battle hymns (Climbing Up Ikinmaya; Gathering All The Na’vi Clans For Battle) and complex, brutal action music (The Destruction Of “Hometree”; War).

Yet the stand out cue is Becoming One Of “The People” Becoming One With Neytiri, a breathtaking piece that starts with a simple, beautiful theme and builds to something strident, powerful and muscular before returning to its small, intimate roots. Lovely stuff and, on first listen, something that will stand up against the best of Horner’s mighty back catalogue.

For the record, I See You, the Avatar theme choon sung by Leona Lewis, was not ready for us to hear.

The Avatar score will be available from December 15th with the movie following three days later.

Dukefrukem

11-25-2009, 04:15 PM

still not enough promotion for this movie? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APQ2OxgCNzE)

or this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JWk_JIE3Ow)

megladon8

11-26-2009, 12:42 AM

A Coke Zero commercial and a neat piece of technology in a YouTube video?

Morris Schæffer

11-30-2009, 10:49 AM

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=4342

Horner on the score.

megladon8

11-30-2009, 08:15 PM

Kurosawa Fan

11-30-2009, 08:22 PM

No thanks. This movie has had more than enough opportunity to win me over, and hasn't even come close. I'm passing.

Raiders

11-30-2009, 08:45 PM

No thanks. This movie has had more than enough opportunity to win me over, and hasn't even come close. I'm passing.

I usually leave it up to the movie itself to win me over.

Sven

11-30-2009, 08:52 PM

I usually leave it up to the movie itself to win me over.

More often than not, I'm sure you see a movie because you think you'll like it and you won't see a movie because you think you won't.

Kurosawa Fan

11-30-2009, 08:54 PM

I usually leave it up to the movie itself to win me over.

So you make no judgments beforehand and are open to seeing anything and everything?

Watashi

11-30-2009, 09:26 PM

A clip of Worthington's avatar being chased by a monster. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/dor/objects/800318/avatar/videos/avatar_trl_thanator_chase.html ?show=hi)

Some of it looks great, some of it...not so great.

And not very exciting.
For someone with 99 posts in this thread, a lot of them have been very negative.

Can't you just like wait until the movie comes out and then post your disappointment?

Watashi

11-30-2009, 09:27 PM

To be fair, I haven't been watching any clips or behind-the-scenes featurettes because I wanna be surprised at my IMAX showing.

There's already so much out there (including the soundtrack listings) that spoil the entire film.

Ezee E

12-01-2009, 05:33 AM

Yeah. I've only seen the previews and tv spots that I wasn't able to avoid. A few look good, a few okay. But I'm definitely seeing it.

Raiders

12-01-2009, 03:18 PM

More often than not, I'm sure you see a movie because you think you'll like it and you won't see a movie because you think you won't.

So you make no judgments beforehand and are open to seeing anything and everything?

I was referring more to trailers, tv spots and clips which seems to be the basis for KF's "opportunity to win me over" comment. I obviously make up my mind before a film is released (I'm not bothering with Ron Howard's next Oscar yuckfest no matter what) on whether it interests me or not, and I would imagine KF also did this without really having to see the stuff posted in this thread. Otherwise, if you're a fan of Cameron and you like the premise, I don't know why anything here should really change your mind. As such, I leave it up to the film to "win me over," not buzz, trailers, interviews and clips released by media teams ahead of time.

Kurosawa Fan

12-01-2009, 03:50 PM

I was referring more to trailers, tv spots and clips which seems to be the basis for KF's "opportunity to win me over" comment. I obviously make up my mind before a film is released (I'm not bothering with Ron Howard's next Oscar yuckfest no matter what) on whether it interests me or not, and I would imagine KF also did this without really having to see the stuff posted in this thread. Otherwise, if you're a fan of Cameron and you like the premise, I don't know why anything here should really change your mind. As such, I leave it up to the film to "win me over," not buzz, trailers, interviews and clips released by media teams ahead of time.

I wasn't opposed to seeing it, especially with the new technology that Cameron was developing. In fact, for a time I was excited at the thought of the ground-breaking effects and was trying to find the closest IMAX screen to my city. But after seeing all this footage, it's clear that the film isn't in my wheelhouse. The effects aren't as extraordinary as I hoped and the story seems rote. Nothing has impressed me or kept me interested.

Morris Schæffer

12-01-2009, 04:02 PM

I wasn't opposed to seeing it, especially with the new technology that Cameron was developing. In fact, for a time I was excited at the thought of the ground-breaking effects and was trying to find the closest IMAX screen to my city. But after seeing all this footage, it's clear that the film isn't in my wheelhouse. The effects aren't as extraordinary as I hoped and the story seems rote. Nothing has impressed me or kept me interested.

It sure does, I'm afraid to say.

Wryan

12-01-2009, 04:20 PM

Fuck all, do we have to have this conversation about judging stuff before it's released before everything? I'm eating lunch today with coworkers at a place called Yo Burrito, but I don't give a fuck. It's just lunch!

:)

Raiders

12-01-2009, 04:49 PM

Fuck all, do we have to have this conversation about judging stuff before it's released before everything?

I think this was my first time involved. I felt left out.

Wryan

12-01-2009, 04:50 PM

I think this was my first time involved. I felt left out.

Don't feel blue, Joaquin.

Qrazy

12-01-2009, 07:40 PM

Can you prejudge art before it's released or only entertainment?

Fezzik

12-01-2009, 10:17 PM

Is it "safe" (i.e. not pre-judging) to say that although the film looks like it will be a visual kick in the pants, what I've seen of the story really concerns me?

It looks like several we've seen before. And if this was a summer film, I'd say "ok" and chalk it up to being a popcorn film and go with it, but this is supposed to be Cameron's Magnum Opus, right?

I dunno, it doesn't feel like that to me.

That said, I do still want to see it.

Morris Schæffer

12-02-2009, 10:48 AM

I keep repeating that line from the trailer about "not being in Kansas anymore" while humming the awesome awesome track from The Island.

Wryan

12-02-2009, 02:32 PM

Can you prejudge art before it's released or only entertainment?

I don't know, but MOMA really needs to start releasing Bay-cut trailers for its tentpole exhibits.

Dukefrukem

12-02-2009, 05:14 PM

This is a stupid conversation. If you don't want to see it, or have no interest in seeing it, or the trailers and promos haven't "won you over" fine. Your loss. Have fun at Iron Man 2. The end.

megladon8

12-02-2009, 05:15 PM

Iron Man 2 is gonna be so much better than Avatar. ;)

Qrazy

12-02-2009, 06:06 PM

I don't know, but MOMA really needs to start releasing Bay-cut trailers for its tentpole exhibits.

We can only hope, and pray.

Kurosawa Fan

12-02-2009, 06:10 PM

This is a stupid conversation. If you don't want to see it, or have no interest in seeing it, or the trailers and promos haven't "won you over" fine. Your loss. Have fun at Iron Man 2. The end.

What if I didn't like Iron Man? What then, Duke?

Sycophant

12-02-2009, 06:28 PM

This thread has 861 posts in it over 2 years. Though I think it'd probably be about accurate to say it has 8 posts in it.

megladon8

12-02-2009, 08:55 PM

What if I didn't like Iron Man? What then, Duke?

Then you're completely out of luck and should just go die somewhere.

Avatar and Iron Man 2 are the only two movies worth anything coming out in the future. Wars will be fought between the Avatar-lovers (aka "The Jimmy C's"), and the Iron Man 2 lovers (aka "The Red Helmets").

They will decide the future of mankind as a species.

If you do not side with either of them, you're just wasting space on this planet.

Morris Schæffer

12-02-2009, 10:06 PM

Iron Man 2 is gonna be so much better than Avatar. ;)

Now that I seriously doubt. The ambition in Avatar is likely to surpass Iron Man 2 with considerable ease. I know I know, ambition is only one side of the coin, but judging in terms of eye candy first and foremost, Avatar will probably win hands down. Of that I'm very nearly sure. And it's not like Iron Man part 1 had oodles of depth and power. But it's cool if you prefer Marvel's universe. And I guess in the end anything's possible.

Dukefrukem

12-02-2009, 11:04 PM

This is James-fuckin-Cameron here. Like his resume isn't already ridiculous. The hype and lowered expectations is what is turning people off? If this was being directed by Del Toro all of you would be blowing him (figuratively) in this thread.

megladon8

12-03-2009, 01:28 AM

Duke, that makes no sense.

Derek

12-03-2009, 01:45 AM

Duke, that makes no sense.

He's implying that the same footage by a foreign director like Del Toro would have people at MatchCut more excited, but since it's a mainstream American director, we're not blown away. In other words, if you're not creaming your pants to get at this film, you're a pretentious phoney.

And, while what I've seen doesn't have me excited, Cameron's certainly a good enough action director for me to give it a shot.

megladon8

12-03-2009, 01:46 AM

He's implying that the same footage by a foreign director like Del Toro would have people at MatchCut more excited, but since it's a mainstream American director, we're not blown away. In other words, if you're not creaming your pants to get at this film, you're a pretentious phoney.

And, while what I've seen doesn't have me excited, Cameron's certainly a good enough action director for me to give it a shot.

I know what he was saying.

That's why I said it makes no sense.

I have no reason to want to impress anyone here. I like what I like, I don't like what I don't like. Throwing Del Toro's name on this same trailer wouldn't make me any more excited.

Derek

12-03-2009, 01:51 AM

I have no reason to want to impress anyone here. I like what I like, I don't like what I don't like. Throwing Del Toro's name on this same trailer wouldn't make me any more excited.

What part of "The end" do you not understand, meg? ;)

megladon8

12-03-2009, 02:30 AM

What part of "The end" do you not understand, meg? ;)

Me no understand...

Mysterious Dude

12-03-2009, 02:48 AM

I actually don't find James Cameron's resume all that impressive, except that he knows how to make money. Or at least, he did in 1997.

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 03:00 AM

He's implying that the same footage by a foreign director like Del Toro would have people at MatchCut more excited, but since it's a mainstream American director, we're not blown away. In other words, if you're not creaming your pants to get at this film, you're a pretentious phoney.

And, while what I've seen doesn't have me excited, Cameron's certainly a good enough action director for me to give it a shot.

Thats not exactly accurate, but it's close enough. Lets just watch it and find out.

and meg, your face makes no sense.

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 03:01 AM

I actually don't find James Cameron's resume all that impressive, except that he knows how to make money. Or at least, he did in 1997.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Derek

12-03-2009, 03:49 AM

Me no understand...

I was quoting Duke.

Thats not exactly accurate, but it's close enough. Lets just watch it and find out.

It has nothing to do with watching the film. It has to do with you questioning the legitimacy of how people respond to the trailers of this film, which is as absurd as it is condescending. Although not as absurd as the fact that accusations of closed-mindedness towards films are coming from someone who watches virtually nothing outside of American movies from the last 15 years.

Skitch

12-03-2009, 11:08 AM

*reads last few pages*

I really like The Abyss.

You should all jump in one.

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 02:00 PM

I was quoting Duke.

It has nothing to do with watching the film. It has to do with you questioning the legitimacy of how people respond to the trailers of this film, which is as absurd as it is condescending. Although not as absurd as the fact that accusations of closed-mindedness towards films are coming from someone who watches virtually nothing outside of American movies from the last 15 years.

Check that... maybe it I did mean pretentious phonies....

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 02:03 PM

*reads last few pages*

I really like The Abyss.

You should all jump in one.

I love the abyss... my 2nd favorite Cameron film.

Fezzik

12-03-2009, 02:15 PM

I like Cameron a lot. In fact, I don't think I've actually disliked any of his films, but...

...with this one something just seems off with the story. It looks great, and yeah, I'll see it, but am I being a pretentious phoney because I'm concerned over what looks like a lack of story depth, based on what I've seen so far?

I think that's a rather broad paintbrush to be using here. I might end up being wrong and the story may turn out to be amazing, but from everything they've shown us (and hey, isnt their job to get us to be interested?) the story seems, as someone else said, pretty rote.

I want to see it, but I'm not blowing a gasket or 'creaming my pants' about it. If that makes me a pretentious phoney, well, hell, that'd be a first :D

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 02:19 PM

megladon8

12-03-2009, 03:44 PM

Wow, Duke.

On another note, on a good day I'd say The Abyss is my favorite Cameron film.

Dukefrukem

12-03-2009, 04:13 PM

Wow Meg.

KK2.0

12-03-2009, 04:25 PM

Sycophant

12-03-2009, 04:57 PM

I know it's not usually done, but I'd like to see a brand new thread hit General Film Discussion upon the film's release in two weeks instead of continuing this thread.

Barty

12-03-2009, 05:57 PM

Wow, Duke.

On another note, on a good day I'd say The Abyss is my favorite Cameron film.

Yes, it is. And the DC to boot.

lovejuice

12-03-2009, 06:40 PM

let's face it: we all anticipate this movie in our own different ways. so let's hug and make love. :pritch:

Qrazy

12-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Embrace the bile before the bile embraces you.

Winston*

12-03-2009, 08:09 PM

The simple act of seeing the man embracing the bile causes considerable pleasure.

Rowland

12-03-2009, 08:49 PM

The Terminator > T2 > Aliens > The Abyss DC > > > True Lies > Titanic

The DC of The Abyss is superior because it has many more fleshed out character moments related to both the supporting cast and the main romantic interests, and the Alien encounter stuff is at least coherent. If the climax is cheesy, it's charmingly so.

Skitch

12-03-2009, 10:17 PM

The Abyss - director's cut or theatrical? why?

I'd say theatrical. The giant wave scene was fantastic back then, but the reason behind the aliens not wiping up mankind was a vomit-inducing "because of love", Cameron was smart for leaving it out.

and yes, this is my feeble attempt on saving the thread.

Director's cut, all the way. It turns a story about some people underwater somewhere, into a giant international epic (dispite the wave).

YOUR feeble attempt?! Am I on everyone's ignore list? :P

Morris Schæffer

12-03-2009, 11:27 PM

Difficult but,

Aliens > T2: Judgment Day > The Terminator > The Abyss > True Lies > Titanic

There was a time when I was comparing The Abyss to most Cameron movies and really felt it came up short. I'd give the movie three "measly" stars. These days, I'm nearly convinced that if I were to see it theatrically for the first time, I'd likely get four stars from me. God I'd go to great lenghts if most "crowdpleasers" were as awesome as The Abyss.

Aliens - ****
T2 - ****
The Terminator - ****
The Abyss - ***½
True Lies - ***½
Titanic - ***½

It's clear I love the man with fiery, relentless passion and in the annals of legendary, bearded prophets, Cameron is second only to Chuck Norris.

My expectations for Avatar are, btw, completely unrealistic.

megladon8

12-03-2009, 11:52 PM

There was a long time I considered T2 the greatest action film of all time.

But I haven't seen it in about 6 years. I'm kind of afraid to re-watch it.

Adam

12-04-2009, 12:03 AM

Actually, guys, it goes

The Terminator, B
Aliens, B+
The Abyss, D+
T2, B
True Lies, B
Titanic, C-

megladon8

12-04-2009, 12:05 AM

That third one is all kinds of wrong, Adam.

Raiders

12-04-2009, 12:18 AM

Yeah, I found the entire second half of The Abyss really underwhelming and pretty darn silly actually. Haven't seen the DC though.

The Terminator [***]
Aliens [***]
The Abyss [**]
Terminator 2: Judgment Day [**½]
True Lies [*½]
Titanic [**½]

Grouchy

12-04-2009, 12:31 AM

I like Cameron a lot. In fact, I don't think I've actually disliked any of his films
Even Titanic?

Fezzik

12-04-2009, 12:50 AM

Even Titanic?

Yes. Its easily my least favorite of his, but it does have its moments. I'd probably give it a B- or a C.

Qrazy

12-04-2009, 01:53 AM

Yeah, I found the entire second half of The Abyss really underwhelming and pretty darn silly actually. Haven't seen the DC though.

Come on, the scene where they're going to drown is compelling.

Dukefrukem

12-04-2009, 02:52 AM

There was a long time I considered T2 the greatest action film of all time.

But I haven't seen it in about 6 years. I'm kind of afraid to re-watch it.

In my book it's the best special effects movie of all time.

Adam

12-04-2009, 09:08 AM

Scale of one to ten, how pretentious of me is it to say that I could've written the screenplay for The Abyss when I was 12 and a half?

Skitch

12-04-2009, 11:14 AM

Scale of one to ten, how pretentious of me is it to say that I could've written the screenplay for The Abyss when I was 12 and a half?
I wouldn't say pretentious at all, I'd say completely fucking rediculous and roll my eyes as hard as I could.

Morris Schæffer

12-04-2009, 01:50 PM

In my book it's the best special effects movie of all time.

Yeah, I think Meg needn't fear anything at all. FX wise the movie is actually pretty old school and the liquid effects haven't aged at all methinks. I suppose the one returning complaint is that the movie is cheesy compared to the original, Arnie transformed from terrifying killing machine into a more pussified killing machine, but it's a view I never subscribed to. The ending remains major "lump-in-throat" material.

Dukefrukem

12-04-2009, 02:09 PM

Yeah, I think Meg needn't fear anything at all. FX wise the movie is actually pretty old school and the liquid effects haven't aged at all methinks. I suppose the one returning complaint is that the movie is cheesy compared to the original, Arnie transformed from terrifying killing machine into a more pussified killing machine, but it's a view I never subscribed to. The ending remains major "lump-in-throat" material.

Special Effects are sooooo old school. I think i posted this before,but this remains one of my favorite scenes of all time. Watch closely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t_wrtyxFp8).

In this scene, there are actually five people. Arnold, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, a Furlong look alike, and Linda Hamilton's twin sister! (Leslie Hamilton Gearren)

The mirror, isn't a mirror at all. It's Arnold sitting across from a dummy, as the camera pans around the dummy's head so you can see a gaping hole where the chip would be. Linda Hamilton and her sister practiced the routine so they could shadow each other to simulate the mirror. Same deal with Furlong and his twin. If you focus on the dummy, you can sorta tell that it's a prosthetic.

Love that scene so much. Hate how it was cut out of the theatrical release, but stocked they threw it back in the DC.

They would never attempt this scene in today's cinema. They'd go straight to green screen.

KK2.0

12-04-2009, 07:29 PM

I also enjoy all Cameron movies to various extents.

Aliens - **** probably my favorite action movie ever, i remember watching it several times during my youth and until recently, i still find it incredible.

T2 - **** despite Arnold turning from indestructible killing machine to pet cyborg, the movie aged nicely, Sarah Connor character is a lot more interesting imo, the damsel in distress from the first movie became a tragic character and the T-1000 is every bit as frightening as the T-800 and a very imaginative villain.

The Terminator - ***1/2 it aged a bit worse but it's a B-movie classic. No discussion.

Titanic - ***1/2 this one gets an exaggerated hate, i understand we all got pretty saturated with Celine Dion back then, but removing the prejudice and unrealistic expectations over the amount of money and prizes it got, it's a nice piece of cinema, unapologetic throwback to old hollywood romantic tales, mixed with some of the most thrilling disaster movie ever put to screen.

The Abyss - *** I cared less for the exposition of the secondary characters in the DC, i rather take the theatrical and it's more focused story about the crew of an underwater scientific base that makes contact with aliens, no distractions with huge world threats either, just the fascination with the ocean's mysteries. It's like a deep sea version of Spielberg's Close Encounters, with some crazy marines and an atomic bomb thrown in to shake things up.

True Lies - *** Despite being the 'minor' of the Cameron's, i find this spy comedy very enjoyable, I love Jamie Lee Curtis in this, and the bridge action sequence is unbelievable. True Lies is quality popcorn like we don't get in this days of three-hour CGI masturbatory movies, that's why i have a slight hope that Avatar will surprise.

Dukefrukem

12-04-2009, 07:33 PM

T2 - **** despite Arnold turning from indestructible killing machine to pet cyborg, the movie aged nicely, Sarah Connor character is a lot more interesting imo, the damsel in distress from the first movie became a tragic character and the T-1000 is every bit as frightening as the T-800 and a very imaginative villain.

With the exception of some of the hair styles in the mall scene and a few model cars, on Blu-ray T2 looks like it was shot yesterday.

Morris Schæffer

12-04-2009, 08:20 PM

Yeah, that makes that scene kind of amazing Duke. Here's hoping Cameron did some similarly inventive stuff on Avatar rather than resorting to high-tech shenanigans at the first sign of a setback.

KK2.0

12-04-2009, 08:43 PM

The problem is, movie making is much different now. I don't mind if he's using the current CGI techniques, i just want to watch a good movie.

Scar

12-05-2009, 02:52 PM

Scale of one to ten, how pretentious of me is it to say that I could've written the screenplay for The Abyss when I was 12 and a half?

Eleven.

number8

12-05-2009, 10:30 PM

You're all weird.

I'm seeing this movie Thursday. I'll have an informed opinion then.

lovejuice

12-06-2009, 07:17 AM

In this scene, there are actually five people. Arnold, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, a Furlong look alike, and Linda Hamilton's twin sister! (Leslie Hamilton Gearren)

The mirror, isn't a mirror at all. It's Arnold sitting across from a dummy, as the camera pans around the dummy's head so you can see a gaping hole where the chip would be. Linda Hamilton and her sister practiced the routine so they could shadow each other to simulate the mirror. Same deal with Furlong and his twin. If you focus on the dummy, you can sorta tell that it's a prosthetic.

that's really cool. remind me of a scene in joe dante's the inner space, in which instead of going for a "cheap" cgi, they do it with perspective and whatnot. movies should be made more and more like this.

[ETM]

12-06-2009, 11:39 AM

that's really cool. remind me of a scene in joe dante's the inner space, in which instead of going for a "cheap" cgi, they do it with perspective and whatnot. movies should be made more and more like this.

Why? Isn't it all about what looks good and appropriate in the end? If bad physical effects detract from a scene that could have been done more convincingly using other means, I'll always vote for other means. CGI is a tool, not a purpose.

lovejuice

12-06-2009, 12:02 PM

;222132']Why? Isn't it all about what looks good and appropriate in the end? If bad physical effects detract from a scene that could have been done more convincingly using other means, I'll always vote for other means. CGI is a tool, not a purpose.
because movies, i believe, are supposed to be about "magic" -- mirror, stand-in, wire, perspective -- rather than a feast of technology. nowadays we don't really ask ourselves how they do that. there is no more excitement peeking behind the scene.

KK2.0

12-06-2009, 04:23 PM

because movies, i believe, are supposed to be about "magic" -- mirror, stand-in, wire, perspective -- rather than a feast of technology. nowadays we don't really ask ourselves how they do that. there is no more excitement peeking behind the scene.

But there´s still plenty of practical stuff being done today, even on a film like Transformers. It´s a known fact that CGI works the best when used togheter with analog FX, War of The Worlds, the LOTR saga, King Kong, even the Star Wars prequels still used a lot of miniatures and camera trickery, it´s only that CGI is becoming more and more efficient, or in better words: fast and cheap to use.

Ezee E

12-06-2009, 04:26 PM

because movies, i believe, are supposed to be about "magic" -- mirror, stand-in, wire, perspective -- rather than a feast of technology. nowadays we don't really ask ourselves how they do that. there is no more excitement peeking behind the scene.
As long as I'm convinced while watching the movie, I could careless how the special effects are achieved.

Dead & Messed Up

12-06-2009, 07:33 PM

As long as I'm convinced while watching the movie, I could careless how the special effects are achieved.

Yeah, I agree with this, although technically I *couldn't* care less about how the special effects are achieved.

Morris Schæffer

12-06-2009, 07:54 PM

;222132']Why? Isn't it all about what looks good and appropriate in the end? If bad physical effects detract from a scene that could have been done more convincingly using other means, I'll always vote for other means. CGI is a tool, not a purpose.

Yes, but seeing George Lucas sitting in front of a monitor, discussing where to remove and insert federation droids at the touch of a button, seemed to indicate to me what's wrong with CGI. I can't shake the feeling that filmmakers are resorting to it without respect for the tool, because it's easier than doing it the practical way.

number8

12-06-2009, 08:17 PM

because movies, i believe, are supposed to be about "magic" -- mirror, stand-in, wire, perspective -- rather than a feast of technology. nowadays we don't really ask ourselves how they do that. there is no more excitement peeking behind the scene.

You can never have this again. Should you choose to use practical effects nowadays and you do it well, most people automatically assume it was CG anyway.

Kurosawa Fan

12-06-2009, 09:24 PM

I'm totally with lovejuice on this. The magic of special effects has been forever tarnished by CG, and I'm still not convinced it's worth it.

Qrazy

12-06-2009, 09:55 PM

'If' I'm convinced by the effect than yeah it shouldn't be a problem how it's done. The problem is I have almost never been convinced. I have never seen a CG stunt which felt as real as a Jackie Chan fight scene.

megladon8

12-06-2009, 10:24 PM

The transformation scene in American Werewolf in London and the effects achieved through make-up, prosthetics and miniatures in Alien and Aliens are better than any CGI I've seen thus far.

Scar

12-06-2009, 10:45 PM

The transformation scene in American Werewolf in London and the effects achieved through make-up, prosthetics and miniatures in Alien and Aliens are better than any CGI I've seen thus far.

The dropship crash in Aliens hasn't aged the best....

Scar

12-06-2009, 10:46 PM

What about the cgi in Zodiac?

Dead & Messed Up

12-06-2009, 11:04 PM

Frankly, it irritates me when people make blanket statements regarding CG. I think there's incredible CG that's invisible (Children of Men, Chicago), incredible CG that's fantastical and wedded convincingly to live action (The Two Towers, The Lost World), incredible CG that calls attention to itself and makes no bones about its artificiality (Sky Captain, Sin City).

The "magic" of special effects has always been a nebulous thing. I mean, The Thief of Bagdad gets a free pass because of the imagination of the effects, and not necessarily the execution. I feel the same way about The Mist, which has poorly-integrated effects, but they're effects that are awesome in their creativity.

This notion of the "magic" of earlier special effects is also a strangely modern one, a generational way of thinking that speaks more to our nostalgia and less to the inherent "realism" of individual effects shots. Most special effects technicians, even back then, were trying to make their effects as realistic as they possibly could. Us praising them in modern times for altogether different reasons (like the "magic" or "excitement" of their artifice)...it feels like a curmudgeon saying, "Well back in my day, we didn't need any of this hooey!"

megladon8

12-06-2009, 11:10 PM

I didn't think any of the CGI in The Lord of the Rings films was much good 'til Return of the King. There were good moments, but then there were moments that were baaad. Like Legolas jumping on top of the Cave Troll.

Even Gollum looked much better in that one than in The Two Towers.

I see what you're saying, DaMU, and agree to an extent...but I really do find it much more intriguing to read about how the effects were carried out in An American Werewolf in London or the original Star Wars trilogy, than just watching a featurette where a bunch of actors dance around in suits covered with little white balls, all in front of a green screen.

Yes, CGI has done some incredible things. But I think there are areas where CGI hasn't reached a level of effectiveness that make-up, prosthetics and animatronics have. A good example of this would be Where the Wild Things Are - I don't know that people would have still been heaping praises on the creature designs had they been done with CGI, because it may not have looked as good.

number8

12-06-2009, 11:22 PM

Yes, CGI has done some incredible things. But I think there are areas where CGI hasn't reached a level of effectiveness that make-up, prosthetics and animatronics have. A good example of this would be Where the Wild Things Are - I don't know that people would have still been heaping praises on the creature designs had they been done with CGI, because it may not have looked as good.

Kind of a weird example, since the Wild Things' heads were all CGI.

Dead & Messed Up

12-06-2009, 11:23 PM

Even Gollum looked much better in that one than in The Two Towers.

If you're implying he wasn't completely convincing in TTT, I will hunt you for sport.

Meg is the most dangerous game...

I see what you're saying, DaMU, and agree to an extent...but I really do find it much more intriguing to read about how the effects were carried out in An American Werewolf in London or the original Star Wars trilogy, than just watching a featurette where a bunch of actors dance around in suits covered with little white balls, all in front of a green screen.

Well, that's very different from analyzing their success in the actual film. I agree that stop-motion armatures, matte work, and prosthetic effects hold much more interest, generally, than the usual CG stuff, from an analytical/artistic standpoint.

megladon8

12-06-2009, 11:25 PM

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought the suits and faces were all real.

And yeah, Gollum was not completely convincing. Unless "he looked pretty good, but moved a little wonky and his hair behaved like that of a video game character" is what you mean when you say "completely convincing" :P

number8

12-06-2009, 11:37 PM

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought the suits and faces were all real.

Actually, the irony here is that Spike wanted to use full animatronics, but it was so difficult to control and ultimately impossible to shoot with that they decided to throw away their animatronic heads and go CGI.

:P

Raiders

12-07-2009, 01:27 AM

Melville

12-07-2009, 02:16 AM

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 02:20 AM

I didn't think any of the CGI in The Lord of the Rings films was much good 'til Return of the King. There were good moments, but then there were moments that were baaad. Like Legolas jumping on top of the Cave Troll.

Didn't Return of the King have the worst CGI? The ending fight with the ghosts?

I liked the Orc fight in Fellowship. A lot

Yes, CGI has done some incredible things. But I think there are areas where CGI hasn't reached a level of effectiveness that make-up, prosthetics and animatronics have. A good example of this would be Where the Wild Things Are - I don't know that people would have still been heaping praises on the creature designs had they been done with CGI, because it may not have looked as good.

How about the best example ever... Yoda. Works so well in the original films. He looks like shit in the new ones.

Qrazy

12-07-2009, 02:47 AM

I'm not really an FX guy, but for anyone to assert that the work by Weta in LOTR is anything short of phenomenal, that Gollum wasn't and isn't a remarkably realistic and fully-integrated creation and that the advent of CGI isn't largely responsible for such films to even be attempted is just patently absurd to me.

I think the problem with CGI is that ultimately the bar has simply been set too high and the near-infinite possibilities make for additional scrutiny. A few strands of hair is all that we can complain about with Gollum and yet it is where our focus goes, not on the stunning integration of his character into the landscape. We simply expect and will not accept anything less than perfect. I guess it is a subconscious bias built on the idea that it isn't real so we immediately look for what isn't "likelike" about it as opposed to looking at it in the opposite direction as we would animatronics and other objects physically located in the same space as the characters and terrain. Or perhaps more closely, we can't "see" physically the work of the artists and we don't grasp or respect the creation as much as we do hand-crafted work. There's still something more "honorable" and honorably old school about putting the manual effort and we are more quickly to forgive.

I agree with you that Gollum is a great creation, I respect and appreciate CGI and do think it can be used wonderfully. But I also feel that purely CGI creatures and landscapes have almost never achieved the sense of tactility or physicality that filming an actual object can. And I also don't think it requires that much scrutiny to perceive this lack of physical presence. I might find an animatronic to be un-lifelike, but I never doubt it's weight or texture.

This is why I don't buy the nostalgia argument voiced earlier. I think the issue is primarily what is being gained versus what is being lost. Some things are definitely being gained (much more flexibility for character actions, greater shot selection) and at least at this point some things are being lost (physical presence). So the issue as I see it is simply what the viewer values more, and also which works better in the context of the scene... ex: quick cuts of Jaws vs. a long take of Gollum arguing with himself in the woods.

But as I've said, I've still never seen a CGI fight scene which has the physical energy of a real (well choreographed) fight scene or a CGI explosion which can match a real explosion. It seems completely possible to me that CGI could one day overcome these issues, but I don't think it has yet.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 02:51 AM

But as I've said, I've still never seen a CGI fight scene which has the physical energy of a real (well choreographed) fight scene or a CGI explosion which can match a real explosion. It seems completely possible to me that CGI could one day overcome these issues, but I don't think it has yet.

Burly Brawl in Reloaded?

2 T-Rexs vs King Kong?

Adam

12-07-2009, 03:09 AM

The big thing is CG effects can seem dated almost immediately whereas accomplished practical effects have a more timeless quality. But I mean as long as the CG isn't too distracting, who cares? A lot of these sorta event movies like 2012 and whatnot aren't meant to be watched ten years down the line, anyway. And, really, you take the good with the bad. Blockbusters these days are working with a much larger scope, so even if the CG is noticeable, stuff like the battle of Helm's Deep wouldn't have been possible to achieve on anywhere near the same scale fifteen years ago

Mysterious Dude

12-07-2009, 03:20 AM

Burly Brawl in Reloaded?

This is your example of a good fight scene? Really?

Personally, I miss stop-motion effects. Seemed like they were just getting good in the late eighties, in films like Beetlejuice and Evil Dead II.

lovejuice

12-07-2009, 05:20 AM

The big thing is CG effects can seem dated almost immediately whereas accomplished practical effects have a more timeless quality.
good point, adam. as aged and unconvincing as poltergeist looks, the effects there are still so much fun to watch.

Dead & Messed Up

12-07-2009, 05:59 AM

Qrazy

12-07-2009, 06:47 AM

Burly Brawl in Reloaded?

2 T-Rexs vs King Kong?

Seriously?

No, for sure not to both of those.

Burly Brawl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y8cf0UXFhg): The hits are almost always obscured. Furthermore sometimes Neo seems to possess weight, other times he's light as a feather.

Police Story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ2Z8pGWmmg&feature=related): Look at the force with which people smash into things or hit the ground here.

Bosco B Thug

12-07-2009, 06:59 AM

What makes the effects in Poltergeist fun? Is it their now-self-conscious artifice, their creativity, or the way in which they're used to supplement an already-effective story?

I just think there are way too many variables for anyone to make any sort of convincing edict regarding CG or practical.

The distinction is even more absurd when you see good directors utilizing both, which brings out the best facets of each. Like the combination of animatronics and CG in Jurassic Park, or trick photography and CG in Terminator 2, or the abundance of miniatures in the Star Wars prequels, or the way the Wachowskis combine CG with entire new methods of photography for The Matrix. I don't know much about FX either, and your point about the FX wizardry utilizing both together is very valid, but even though Poltergeist and old FX do have a certain artifice and silliness, they just have the materiality and tangibility to them that makes them thrill more than seeing what are essentially cartoon drawings moving around on the screen.

CG can capture that thrill sometimes, but usually only at a subtle level, like Pulse's tower drop. I think I can confidently say I'll always be more stimulated by, say, the sight of strategically placed plastic jungle bushes than any vast CG jungle (thinking King Kong here).

But I guess it is a sacrifice we have to make for the impossible sorts of spectacle that we have in blockbusters today.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 07:19 AM

No one utilizes CG better than Spielberg.

A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds... it's all seamless and doesn't draw attention to itself at all.

Dead & Messed Up

12-07-2009, 07:52 AM

Burly Brawl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y8cf0UXFhg): The hits are almost always obscured. Furthermore sometimes Neo seems to possess weight, other times he's light as a feather.

The Burly Brawl is interesting, because viewers almost always instantly tune out the second CG enters the picture. It's very obvious, and it ruins what, up to then, is marvelously choreographed balletic action.

Sxottlan

12-07-2009, 08:08 AM

I'm looking forward to this film, but there's something that's keeping me from really getting excited. I'm thinking it's the story. I was going to rent that Battle for Terra, but I'm going to hold off because Avatar looks to be the exact same story.

That and the Navi's appearance. I guess it comes down to lighting, but at this point this doesn't look any different than The Phantom Menace. Not that that's really a bad thing. I at least liked the visuals of TPM, but my point being that it doesn't look like anything too revolutionary.

Ezee E

12-07-2009, 10:21 AM

No one utilizes CG better than Spielberg.

A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds... it's all seamless and doesn't draw attention to itself at all.
Yes. Take the CG in this, and it almost seems seamless. You don't realize it's CG.

Then take something shitty like Wolverine, where you can tell the claws are CG most of the time.

If anything, CG is too easy to use. This is what hurts it, but when used properly, it's far better than anything else.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 11:58 AM

This is your example of a good fight scene? Really?

Fucking love that scene. Ok there's a few scenes when he's FLYING that look dumb, but a lot of it looks fantastic.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 12:00 PM

No one utilizes CG better than Spielberg.

A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds... it's all seamless and doesn't draw attention to itself at all.

So what happened in Kingdom of Crystal Skull?

[ETM]

12-07-2009, 12:07 PM

So what happened in Kingdom of Crystal Skull?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/findsam/southparkrape1.jpg

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 12:08 PM

;222371']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/findsam/southparkrape1.jpg

Blocked by work, but I can see the picture URL is "southparkrape1.jpg" so I'm assuming it's this (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/43035/thumbs/s-SOUTH-PARK-RAPE-large.jpg),

number8

12-07-2009, 03:33 PM

Burly Brawl is pretty great.

As is the movie itself.

Sven

12-07-2009, 04:31 PM

A.I., Minority Report, War of the Worlds... it's all seamless and doesn't draw attention to itself at all.

Minority Report has some of the most aggravating CG ever. Some good stuff, sure, and it's technically more than proficient. But those little spider things... how effing pointless are those things? (I have a similar complaint about the snakey eye camera in WotW) And that part with the jetpack in the living room--those people would've been so burned up. What a frustrating movie.

Sven

12-07-2009, 04:38 PM

Morris Schæffer

12-07-2009, 05:10 PM

Fully integrated? Remember when he's wrestling with Sean Astin? That looked stupid. I'm telling you, there's much more to complain about than a few strands of hair.

He's a fine creation, but he never looked real. And that's my problem: they're aiming for real. And they didn't reach it. Because you can tell he's not. So there's that gap. And it's a very distracting gap. And it makes you think "computer." And then you think "what do computers have to do with Middle Earth?" And then you find yourself being called absurd.

Good thing every other human was fantastic and Gollem was but a secondary characte. It's an interesting question. Would a LOTR movie have been comparably engaging if Gollem had been the main character? I wonder how Worthington's avatar is going to fare. There better be some real powerful shit going with his character and, indeed the overarching narrative to make me totally not mind the odd CGI mishap.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 05:15 PM

I agree that the craftmanship and artistry involved in creating practical FX, stop motion and stuff like that are much more interesting than a guy sitting in front of the computer. This coming from a guy that does that for a living.

The Burly Brawl was an imaginative sequence, but i agree the animations were very floaty sometimes, specially when neo jumps over the Smiths' heads. I can't help but compare it with Tony Jaa doing the same stunt in Ong Bak, for realz!! :eek:

The three LOTR films have various degrees of quality, but overall, i think it was an amazing accomplishment, so many iconic visual FX! I'm quite sure people will remember it's CGI in the same league of nostalgia that Harryhausen's stop-motion flicks get today.

I think I can confidently say I'll always be more stimulated by, say, the sight of strategically placed plastic jungle bushes than any vast CG jungle (thinking King Kong here).

But Peter Jackson King Kong's jungles were miniatures :P

I think Avatar used CGI jungles though, waiting for the Cinefx arcticle.

Raiders

12-07-2009, 05:24 PM

Fully integrated? Remember when he's wrestling with Sean Astin? That looked stupid. I'm telling you, there's much more to complain about than a few strands of hair.

He's a fine creation, but he never looked real. And that's my problem: they're aiming for real. And they didn't reach it. Because you can tell he's not. So there's that gap. And it's a very distracting gap. And it makes you think "computer." And then you think "what do computers have to do with Middle Earth?" And then you find yourself being called absurd.

I have no response to this because he looked real to me in practically every frame. Honestly, I forgot within minutes of his being wholly generated and placed within the frame.

I don't know what else to say.

Sven

12-07-2009, 05:33 PM

I don't know what else to say.

Well, given that there are many, many voices out there whose disbelief about the tactility of Gollum was incapable of being suspended, I do not recommend "patently absurd."

Watashi

12-07-2009, 05:36 PM

Minority Report has some of the most aggravating CG ever. Some good stuff, sure, and it's technically more than proficient. But those little spider things... how effing pointless are those things? (I have a similar complaint about the snakey eye camera in WotW) And that part with the jetpack in the living room--those people would've been so burned up. What a frustrating movie.

Um, pretty sure the spiders are not pointless. I don't really pay attention to details like the jetpack in the living room because I was too engaged into the story and action to nitpick. Then again, would it make a difference if Spielberg decided to add a few seconds to show that everyone got burned? No.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 05:37 PM

I have no response to this because he looked real to me in practically every frame. Honestly, I forgot within minutes of his being wholly generated and placed within the frame.

I don't know what else to say.

It's okay Raiders. I don't get it either.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 05:40 PM

I have no complaints about Gollum either, if he looks unconvincing in a shot or another sounds completely irrelevant in comparison to the amazing accomplishment it was at the time The Two Towers opened.

That said, the CGI baby from Children of Men is scary, i remember nearly standing up in the theater with my jaw dropped.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 05:43 PM

I was really surprised by how poorly some of the CGI in War of the Worlds has aged - particularly scenes with actors on CGI backdrops.

Minority Report is still top-notch, though.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 05:43 PM

I still think Zodiac probably has the most seamless CGI in any film this decade.

Sven

12-07-2009, 05:45 PM

Um, pretty sure the spiders are not pointless. I don't really pay attention to details like the jetpack in the living room because I was too engaged into the story and action to nitpick. Then again, would it make a difference if Spielberg decided to add a few seconds to show that everyone got burned? No.

Animating the spiders to move and behave like animals in a Disney forest was really stupid. Because such detecting devices would never behave with personality like that.

And your jetpack defense doesn't make sense. Because of course it would've made a difference to show the aftermath. Not necessarily a good difference, but it would've had a completely different effect. And it isn't nitpicking. The flames of a jetpack are inches away from the faces of all these people and nothing happens. That is not a nit. That's a pretty big thing.

Melville

12-07-2009, 05:51 PM

But Peter Jackson King Kong's jungles were miniatures :P
Things like that make me wonder if images that look computer generated are actually just digitally altered (or even traditionally altered in the developing process). I haven't seen King Kong, but for example, the image from The Road that Antoine posted in another thread definitely looked fake to me (the chiaroscuro appeared too thick and syrupy). Yet it was apparently taken from a real photo (or two). Was it heavily processed?

megladon8

12-07-2009, 05:51 PM

lovejuice

12-07-2009, 05:58 PM

Animating the spiders to move and behave like animals in a Disney forest was really stupid. Because such detecting devices would never behave with personality like that.
i always think it's laughable that the engineers in MR come up with the "mouse" in which tom cruise has to sway his whole arms and body to open and move computer windows.

at caltech, they are now developing a mouse which you can click and move by just rolling your eyes.

probably not related to your post.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 05:58 PM

Animating the spiders to move and behave like animals in a Disney forest was really stupid. Because such detecting devices would never behave with personality like that.

Huh? You know what they would act like? Maybe in you know... THE FUTURE... these detecting devices would be equipped with a sensory personality for just this purpose.

And your jetpack defense doesn't make sense. Because of course it would've made a difference to show the aftermath. Not necessarily a good difference, but it would've had a completely different effect. And it isn't nitpicking. The flames of a jetpack are inches away from the faces of all these people and nothing happens. That is not a nit. That's a pretty big thing.

I just watched the scene again. You are completely wrong. The flames are no where NEAR their faces and in fact it does burn a lot including the furniture, burgers, etc. Plus that entire scene in the living room ending with them busting through boy's room playing the saxophone is played for comedy and slapstick. It would make NO sense to show people getting horribly burned for no reason.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 05:59 PM

at caltech, they are now developing a mouse which you can click by just rolling your eyes.

That would give me such a bad headache I'd probably throw up.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 06:02 PM

I'm with Sven on the Gollem debate.

They were aiming for real, and it didn't look real. It looked like great CGI, but CGI nonetheless.

Sigh. Of course it doesn't look real, because a creature like Gollum does not exist in our world so we will automatically assume it's CGI.

How do you know Jackson was "aiming" for real? What is real? This whole argument that it's "CGI nonetheless" is completely absurd. It's all about the performance of the creature and the emotion he is portraying that Jackson was aiming for.

Dead & Messed Up

12-07-2009, 06:02 PM

i always think it's laughable that the engineers in MR come up with the "mouse" in which tom cruise has to sway his whole arms and body to open and move computer windows.

I've stopped judging science-fiction movies by this bar. Not a single one has accurately predicted the future, and many of them completely missed the bus on a number of inventions/innovations. Even 2001 was tremendously off on a number of points.

I just try to appreciate their imagination. And Tom Cruise conducting his search like a symphony is elegant and visually exciting.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:06 PM

Sigh. Of course it doesn't look real, because a creature like Gollum does not exist in our world so we will automatically assume it's CGI.

Sorry, this is the stupidest rebuttal anyone can give.

A T-Rex doesn't exist in our world, but it looked completely, 100% real in Jurassic Park. I'll never see Mercury pass in front of the Sun, but when I saw that happen in Sunshine, it looked real.

Gollem didn't have proper weight distribution, his interaction with the human characters in The Two Towers looked stilted and awkward, and his flesh is often coated in that shiny sheen that screams "computer graphics".

Sven

12-07-2009, 06:08 PM

Huh? You know what they would act like? Maybe in you know... THE FUTURE... these detecting devices would be equipped with a sensory personality for just this purpose.

I'm not talking about a sensory personality. I'm talking about a personality personality. It's stupid concept, but whatever, you win.

I just watched the scene again. You are completely wrong. The flames are no where NEAR their faces and in fact it does burn a lot including the furniture, burgers, etc. Plus that entire scene in the living room ending with them busting through boy's room playing the saxophone is played for comedy and slapstick. It would make NO sense to show people getting horribly burned for no reason.

I guess my problem may be that the bit is played for slapstick. I'm not saying show the burns, I'm saying cut out the scene. It is confusing and jumbly and, practically, people would be very injured. You are probably right about the logistics, I'm just going by memory and I sold my DVD of it so I cannot check myself, but it's a pretty lame scene. But my complaint doesn't have much to do with effects, so I guess it's irrelevant.

Sven

12-07-2009, 06:08 PM

It's all about the performance of the creature and the emotion he is portraying that Jackson was aiming for.

Oh is it? I didn't know that. Maybe that's my problem.

Melville

12-07-2009, 06:10 PM

Gollem
Criticize his CGI appearance all you want, but at least spell the poor guy's name right.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:14 PM

Criticize his CGI appearance all you want, but at least spell the poor guy's name right.

:lol:

I get the spelling of the LoTR character's name mixed up with the spelling of the German folklore all the time. I've actually caught myself spelling the same one both ways in a single post.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:16 PM

Burly Brawl is pretty great.

As is the movie itself.

I don't remember you liking this movie at all.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:18 PM

Animating the spiders to move and behave like animals in a Disney forest was really stupid. Because such detecting devices would never behave with personality like that.

I highly agree with this.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:19 PM

I'm with Sven on the Gollem debate.

They were aiming for real, and it didn't look real. It looked like great CGI, but CGI nonetheless.

'Tis the same situation, verbatim, with everything I've seen from Avatar so far.

And I'm with Raiders. I was convinced... or maybe it was because I was securely immersed in their world during my viewing.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:24 PM

Sorry, this is the stupidest rebuttal anyone can give.

Why is it stupid? We were talking about this earlier in this thread, about comparing photo realistic effects and how we already know the Na'vi don't exist, so we subconsciousness mark it off as cartoony or CGI. Hell someone in this thread even compared it to TOY STORY (somehow). It's a logical theory.

Sven

12-07-2009, 06:26 PM

It's a logical theory.

Not really. Because how do we know that the future doesn't look like CG from 2003? It's not a design issue, it's a rendering issue.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:26 PM

And I'm with Raiders. I was convinced... or maybe it was because I was securely immersed in their world during my viewing.

And that's fine. All I'm saying, and I think Sven is saying too, is don't write us off as being difficult or "patently absurd", because clearly not everyone thinks the work on Gollum was mind-numbingly incredible.

Opinions. They're beautiful things.

Watashi

12-07-2009, 06:28 PM

Sorry, this is the stupidest rebuttal anyone can give.

A T-Rex doesn't exist in our world, but it looked completely, 100% real in Jurassic Park. I'll never see Mercury pass in front of the Sun, but when I saw that happen in Sunshine, it looked real.

Gollem didn't have proper weight distribution, his interaction with the human characters in The Two Towers looked stilted and awkward, and his flesh is often coated in that shiny sheen that screams "computer graphics".

This is ridiculous. Proper weight distribution? Unless you've worked in computer graphics and/or on the film, how the HELL do you, some guy in Canada, know what the proper weight distribution for a fantasy creature like Gollum is? I'm not saying the film is free of any criticism, but to merely shrug off a design like this and saying it's not "real enough" is stupid.

Sven

12-07-2009, 06:31 PM

This is ridiculous. Proper weight distribution? Unless you've worked in computer graphics and/or on the film, how the HELL do you, some guy in Canada, know what the proper weight distribution for a fantasy creature like Gollum is? I'm not saying the film is free of any criticism, but to merely shrug off a design like this and saying it's not "real enough" is stupid.

No need to be patronizing. Who's shrugging off what? We understand weight distribution because we all live on a planet with the same gravitational pull. If hobbits and wizards move like real people, Gollum, who is merely a decrepit hobbit, must move like a hobbit. There are moments where he does not--where his weight distribution is off. Not a design issue, but an animation issue. Why would working in CG or on the film give someone a better understanding of the way they expect things to move?

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:32 PM

Not really. Because how do we know that the future doesn't look like CG from 2003? It's not a design issue, it's a rendering issue.

Huh? I thought we were talking about why we process things as looking fake between real and make believe? If we have technology to produce a CGI person that looks photorealistic, but 500% the size of a normal human, people would still have this complaint.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:32 PM

Opinions. They're beautiful things.

read the internet ;) :P

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:33 PM

This is ridiculous. Proper weight distribution? Unless you've worked in computer graphics and/or on the film, how the HELL do you, some guy in Canada, know what the proper weight distribution for a fantasy creature like Gollum is? I'm not saying the film is free of any criticism, but to merely shrug off a design like this and saying it's not "real enough" is stupid.

No, it's not.

Many people have been talking about proper weight distribution in this thread when it comes to CGI. Weight is what sells realistic movement and interaction with the environment. When characters' steps seem too floaty, or their hair isn't picked up by the breeze the same way that the hair on the real characters is, it's noticeable.

We're talking about how real these CGI characters seem, so don't say it's stupid that I'm giving reasons why Gollum didn't seem 100% real, because that just makes you sound like you won't accept what I'm saying unless I agree with you.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:35 PM

This is ridiculous. Proper weight distribution? Unless you've worked in computer graphics and/or on the film, how the HELL do you, some guy in Canada, know what the proper weight distribution for a fantasy creature like Gollum is? I'm not saying the film is free of any criticism, but to merely shrug off a design like this and saying it's not "real enough" is stupid.

Weight distribution CAN be a valid point... when used correctly. This is why the CGI artists studied alligator and crocodiles when creating the Alien creatures swimming in Alien Resurrection. They wanted to simulate the kind of movement and weight the creature had in the water.

I don't think this point works when talking about Gollum though.

Meg are you talking about how he hops around? What examples are you finding?

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:41 PM

Huh? I thought we were talking about why we process things as looking fake between real and make believe? If we have technology to produce a CGI person that looks photorealistic, but 500% the size of a normal human, people would still have this complaint.

No they wouldn't, it's a completely different issue.

If it's photorealistic, it'll still look photorealistic if it's 500% the size of a normal human.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:44 PM

No they wouldn't, it's a completely different issue.

If it's photorealistic, it'll still look photorealistic if it's 500% the size of a normal human.

So my follow up question would be what's wrong with the Navi video we've seen, but you're gonna bring up weight distribution and shadows....

megladon8

12-07-2009, 06:50 PM

So my follow up question would be what's wrong with the Navi video we've seen, but you're gonna bring up weight distribution and shadows....

Shadows? What? Has anyone even once mentioned shadows?

And yeah, they don't have proper weight, which, again, is a totally different issue from what you're talking about with the "500% the normal size man" argument, so I really don't see what you're trying to say.

Particularly the scene where we see Worthington's avatar (presumably) first wake-up on the medical table. When it shows his feet wiggling, that looks bloody incredible. But then he gets up, bashes the window and says something like "this is great", and the movement there just doesn't look right.

It's that whole "uncanny valley" concept - the character is like 99.99999% perfect, but that 0.0000001% somehow makes all the difference.

Dukefrukem

12-07-2009, 06:55 PM

Shadows? What? Has anyone even once mentioned shadows?

And yeah, they don't have proper weight, which, again, is a totally different issue from what you're talking about with the "500% the normal size man" argument, so I really don't see what you're trying to say.

Particularly the scene where we see Worthington's avatar (presumably) first wake-up on the medical table. When it shows his feet wiggling, that looks bloody incredible. But then he gets up, bashes the window and says something like "this is great", and the movement there just doesn't look right.

It's that whole "uncanny valley" concept - the character is like 99.99999% perfect, but that 0.0000001% somehow makes all the difference.

I dunno, I remember shadows being talked about on an arm at some point...

I'm trying to determine what makes something not look right. I was using my 500% man example to get a sense of how you relate to things on screen. I prob should have used an example that exists...

Adam

12-07-2009, 06:59 PM

It's an intangible thing. They look fucking fake

Morris Schæffer

12-07-2009, 07:14 PM

thinks the work on Gollum was mind-numbingly incredible.

As a step forward for CGI, it was damn near a milestone.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 07:31 PM

Geez, it must suck to watch movies with you guys, ruining a perfectly good moment with "Look!! his weight is wrong in that scene!!" :lol:

Things like that make me wonder if images that look computer generated are actually just digitally altered (or even traditionally altered in the developing process). I haven't seen King Kong, but for example, the image from The Road that Antoine posted in another thread definitely looked fake to me (the chiaroscuro appeared too thick and syrupy). Yet it was apparently taken from a real photo (or two). Was it heavily processed?

Maybe it was, not all filmmakers aim for a realistic look.

Sven

12-07-2009, 07:35 PM

Maybe it was, not all filmmakers aim for a realistic look.

This is a good point, though I'm not sure I noticed it has been the case with the last few Jackson films. I frequently find myself defending the effects in the first two Harry Potter films because it is obvious to me how they were aiming for something removed from photographic reality.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 07:57 PM

This is a good point, though I'm not sure I noticed it has been the case with the last few Jackson films. I frequently find myself defending the effects in the first two Harry Potter films because it is obvious to me how they were aiming for something removed from photographic reality.

I think this applies to King Kong more than his other works, very stylized and over the top. I loved that the t-rex design was inspired by the stop-motion models instead of the latest paleontologic discoveries.

Qrazy

12-07-2009, 08:11 PM

i always think it's laughable that the engineers in MR come up with the "mouse" in which tom cruise has to sway his whole arms and body to open and move computer windows.

at caltech, they are now developing a mouse which you can click and move by just rolling your eyes.

probably not related to your post.

Wii?

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 08:38 PM

A friend of mine over twitter:

"Yeah, today's fx suck! I want to spot the wires holding the miniature spaceships, i want the big animatronic monster that moves like a puppet! I want naked actors painted in blue and tortured by six hour long make up sessions, screw CGI!"

:lol:

And what about Leona Lewis' Avatar Theme "I see you" http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=16118

:lol: :| :frustrated:

megladon8

12-07-2009, 08:41 PM

As a step forward for CGI, it was damn near a milestone.

I agree and I'm not debating that.

Morris Schæffer

12-07-2009, 08:48 PM

I agree and I'm not debating that.

And I agree that it wasn't photorealistic.

Melville

12-07-2009, 08:51 PM

Maybe it was, not all filmmakers aim for a realistic look.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure that the heavy chiaroscuro was done purposely, however it was achieved. It just seems like whenever things look slightly unreal or unexpected, the immediate thought is that it's CGI. As another example, I remember that Yoda looked like CGI to me in the Star Wars prequels, even in scenes where he was a puppet, because he looked too shiny or something.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 08:52 PM

And I agree that it wasn't photorealistic.

Then I suppose we should dance.

:pritch:

Skitch

12-07-2009, 08:54 PM

Weird. Lately everytime I click to go to the Avatar thread on Match Cut I get diverted to this RT Avatar thread.

Bizarro.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 08:55 PM

Oh, yeah, I'm sure that the heavy chiaroscuro was done purposely, however it was achieved. It just seems like whenever things look slightly unreal or unexpected, the immediate thought is that it's CGI. As another example, I remember that Yoda looked like CGI to me in the Star Wars prequels, even in scenes where he was a puppet, because he looked too shiny or something.

I found it really weird how the puppet used in the prequels looked significantly worse and less expressive than the one used in the '80s originals.

Melville

12-07-2009, 08:56 PM

I found it really weird how the puppet used in the prequels looked significantly worse and less expressive than the one used in the '80s originals.
Definitely. I guess it fit in more with the generally shiny aesthetic of the prequels, but...it sucked.

megladon8

12-07-2009, 08:58 PM

I would have absolutely no problem if Jim Henson's company were to do all of the creature effects for the rest of time.

Jim Henson rules.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 08:58 PM

Oh, yeah, I'm sure that the heavy chiaroscuro was done purposely, however it was achieved. It just seems like whenever things look slightly unreal or unexpected, the immediate thought is that it's CGI. As another example, I remember that Yoda looked like CGI to me in the Star Wars prequels, even in scenes where he was a puppet, because he looked too shiny or something.

Yes, since computers are used heavily, people assume that everything is done with computers nowadays, even when it's not. Maybe that's the origin of the whole debate here, about CGI taking away the mystery of the craft vs what truly matters to make the shot possible.

KK2.0

12-07-2009, 09:08 PM

I would have absolutely no problem if Jim Henson's company were to do all of the creature effects for the rest of time.

Jim Henson rules.

Yes he rules, but the debate over the characters being lifelike would still be on if he did the creatures for avatar?

http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/starwarslist/001_Max_Rebo.jpg

:)

Bosco B Thug

12-08-2009, 12:09 AM

But Peter Jackson King Kong's jungles were miniatures :P

I think Avatar used CGI jungles though, waiting for the Cinefx arcticle. Whoops. When I said I had King Kong in mind, I really didn't have it in mind. I do not recollect having any problem with King Kong's effects, I just needed an example.

Avatar should end up being a good one. :)

The three LOTR films have various degrees of quality, but overall, i think it was an amazing accomplishment, so many iconic visual FX! I'm quite sure people will remember it's CGI in the same league of nostalgia that Harryhausen's stop-motion flicks get today. I think this is very true.

But...

It's an intangible thing. They look fucking fake This is pretty much the bottom line for me. If it's computer drawn, it won't be photo-realistic, like an actual [fake-looking] puppet, animatronic, prop, or plastic fern.