Avatar

[Will Earl]

Yes Tom never thought of that before , good luck to him , i do think thats what he should stay doing !!

 

Why would you say that? Such a back-handed (and ham-fisted) compliment if ever I saw one. He put in excellent performances in 'Inkheart' and 'Einstein and Eddington' - both of which were live-action roles.

 

And Mark Kermode was gushing about his performance in the Ian Dury biopic 'Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll'...

[John Holland]

Well that told me didnt !

[Robert Houllahan]

I and two of my classmates at NYU went to Stan Loth's house on Long Island to see his 3d 'lab' It was mid 90's and he had a set of 35mm Arriflex cameras which put two techniscope frames one atop the other for every 4-perf pulldown, the system was polarization based. He consulted on Jaws-3D and other 80's revival 3D films. So you could shoot 3D with a single camera if you wanted to use 35mm in a light config. Stan Loth also had a 35mm auto stereoscopic viewer in his shop it was huge but you did not need glasses.

 

-Rob-

[George Ebersole]

I interpret the term "game changer" a little bit different:

 

"2001" or "Star Wars" were "game changers", they didn't change the whole film-business but defined new standards regarding what to expect from a good Sci-Fi-movie.

 

This 3D-technology is major change in the business but I agree we will propably see a lot afwful 3D over the next years...

 

They should develop a proper 3D-camera first so that Cameron doesn't need to compromise IQ anymore...

As I posted on my Avatar thread in the General Discussion forum, this film didn't make me want to see more 3D movies. The film student manning the ticket counter talked me into buying a ticket for the 3D showing, stating "Cameron waited 15 years for the technology to catch up to his vision!"

 

I shrugged my shoulders and bought a ticket for the 3D showing. I shrugged at it. The 3D system is no different than what I experienced at Disneyland some 20+ years before with Michael Jackson's 20 minute "Captain EO" film. And as interesting as I found that film, it didn't make me want to see more 3D films.

 

Needless to say I was somewhat let down, but I did enjoy the film for what it was.

I think we are going through the 30 year cycle of 3D when Cinema is threatened by people sitting at home and watching TV , more so this time as we have wide screen TV and 5.1 sound !

That makes sense. I think there's a realization that the theatre experience might be needing some new legs to stand on.

 

Getting back to the technology though, some 10 to 12 years before Disneyland's "Captain EO" film, there were a couple of local Bay Area guys down in Sunnyvale who were pioneering a 3D system for NTSC standard television. You could actually see the 3D effect somewhat on the news program that broke the story.

 

I always thought that system would have taken off by now, and am disappointed that the 3D system used for Avatar is in fact and essence the same twenty year old technology used at Disneyland.

 

I'm not sure hard drama benefits from 3D. This may sound obvious, but I have a hard time picturing something like Truffaut's "Day for Night" in 3D, or Kurosawa's "RAN" or any other high drama film. The computer/video game industry on the other hand, has been looking for a 3D solution for a long time.

[George Ebersole]

4D cinema where the viewer is in the movie.

Hope this doesn't sound too nutty, but I think that's probably the future of movies.

 

Artist/futurist Syd Mead whose worked for Cameron on a number of his projects, has several books out of his conceptual art. In one painting he shows a cocktail party of some future society where the guests are actually sitting within the film being projected. I'm sure one of the more technical savvy here can say how far off something like that is.

[Hal Smith]

You thought some of the things you're seeing now seem physically implausible, just you wait...

(You think I'm kidding, don't you)

 

Not for a second...and you've got me thinking about the idea of capturing the viewer's motion and inserting it into the action.

[Guest Matti Poutanen]

I bet my last dollar that phonelines around the globe are on fire with conversations between directors, DPs and producers about how to convert their current pre-production projects into 3D -- maybe even some in-production films.

 

Ridley Scott seems to be making these kind of calls already. And Michael Bay, apparently, isn´t: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43490.

[Thomas James]

Yes seeing a flat movie is like watching it in black and white.

[George Ebersole]

Yes seeing a flat movie is like watching it in black and white.

Interesting observation. What kind of shot do you think benefits fro 3D?

[Thomas James]

Back in the 1970's I remember seeing stereoscopic pictures of Mars from the Viking lander and it felt like I was on the planet.

[George Ebersole]

So, an establishing shot?

[John Holland]

So you cant have ever seen any beautiful B+W films , if so think you should search some out !!

[Paul Bruening]

Can you do contact lenses for 3D? Sure, they'd be a pain in the butt to deal with just for a movie. But, wouldn't they be a better experience for the viewer from an optical standpoint? Another issue- how could you manage the polarization orientation of the two lenses? If you could, the lenses could orientate the same angle for getting around and re-orientate for 3D product participation. If you could work that out, then people could leave them in all day and everything media related could be 3D, magazines, newspapers, TVs, billboards, posters, movies. The contacts would take some kind of cue from the product and spin to the correct angle. When you looked away from the cue or the product's occupation of your FOV fell below a certain percent, the lenses would return to matched angles. If they could spin anyway, they could operate as sunglasses, 3D glasses and normal optical correction. Nano motors running off human electromagnetic fields turning the micro-thin polarizing lenses on top of normal contact lenses?

 

Maybe, Jannie Oakley can take this and run with it (cutting me a piece of the pie, of course). ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

As we get into award season, what do people think about whether "Avatar" should get a "best cinematography" nomination? I know we pay lip service to the notion that a CGI animated feature like "Wall-E" has cinematography in it, but are we prepared to give out a cinematography award to an animated film? I mention this because "Avatar" is so heavily animated, far beyond an efx-heavy movie like "Transformers" or "Star Trek". It almost comes closer to the category that a Pixar movie would fall into.

 

I can definitely say that "Avatar" is one of the most visually exiting and beautiful-looking movies of the year, but can I therefore say that it deserves an award for the cinematography? Because such an award would go to the cinematographer, not the host of designers and animators who worked on the movie. I'm not trying to knock the cinematographer's contribution, but this sort of movie, so heavily created in post, begs the question of what is photography and cinematography and who should get the lion's share of credit and awards?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Perhaps time to think about a new category.. best cinematography in an animated film (be that drawn/cgi/or mostly efx films such as star war prequels as well as avatar-esque films)

[David Mullen ASC]

Perhaps time to think about a new category.. best cinematography in an animated film (be that drawn/cgi/or mostly efx films such as star war prequels as well as avatar-esque films)

 

Doesn't help me right now as an ASC and AMPAS member with ballots to fill out...

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Fair enough.. in such case, look to the lighting on the real elements... if they warrant the award, all else is moot. If they don't, but the VFXs do, well then it's best special effects, says me.

[Tom Lowe]

As we get into award season, what do people think about whether "Avatar" should get a "best cinematography" nomination? I know we pay lip service to the notion that a CGI animated feature like "Wall-E" has cinematography in it, but are we prepared to give out a cinematography award to an animated film? I mention this because "Avatar" is so heavily animated, far beyond an efx-heavy movie like "Transformers" or "Star Trek". It almost comes closer to the category that a Pixar movie would fall into.

 

I can definitely say that "Avatar" is one of the most visually exiting and beautiful-looking movies of the year, but can I therefore say that it deserves an award for the cinematography? Because such an award would go to the cinematographer, not the host of designers and animators who worked on the movie. I'm not trying to knock the cinematographer's contribution, but this sort of movie, so heavily created in post, begs the question of what is photography and cinematography and who should get the lion's share of credit and awards?

 

IMO, no, Avatar should not win Best Cinematography, simply because I don't think the angles, frames and light were super special -- even though the filmmakers had total control over them! Cameron has never been known for great cinematography.

 

If you want to see an animated film that should win cinematography awards, check out something like "Five Centimeters Per Second":

(you will appreciate the high school hallways, David! ;) ) It features beautiful, haunting camera angles and frames, stunning light..everything you would want in a cinematography masterpiece. So my answer is, yes, in theory, these films are eligible, but Avatar is not a good example of it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Cameron has never been known for great cinematography.

 

You're forgetting that "The Abyss", "Terminator 2", and "Titanic" all got nominated for an Oscar for their cinematography, and "Titanic" won the Oscar.

[Tom Lowe]

You're forgetting that "The Abyss", "Terminator 2", and "Titanic" all got nominated for an Oscar for their cinematography, and "Titanic" won the Oscar.

 

Yeah but it probably only won because it was such an inexorable force that year, sweeping essentially all categories. I was going to say, "with the exception of The Abyss"... so yes, that one was nice. Anyway, I haven't been paying much attention to the cinematography race this year. Who are some of the top contenders? How many films will be allowed in that category?

 

I liked Prieto's work on "State of Play" early this year.

[georg lamshöft]

Production design and setting made it propably easy to get great images in "Titanic" - but I still think the cinematography was georgeous. I think Aliens, Abyss (underwater) and T2 (the steelwork!) looked great as well.

But I'm not sure if "Avatar" would fit in "best cinematography". It easily had the most amazing images of the last years. But who was it? The designers? Mauro Fiore? Or Cameron himself (the B-rolls show him with the real and virtual camera all the time)? I don't think the term "special-effects" can be applied here anymore - it's more like production designers and cinematographers used sfx/computer-tools to do their work!?

[John Holland]

I would love to hear from Mauro Fiore just saying what his input was on this ! Hope it was some of the really nice lighting on the live action .

[George Ebersole]

As we get into award season, what do people think about whether "Avatar" should get a "best cinematography" nomination? I know we pay lip service to the notion that a CGI animated feature like "Wall-E" has cinematography in it, but are we prepared to give out a cinematography award to an animated film? I mention this because "Avatar" is so heavily animated, far beyond an efx-heavy movie like "Transformers" or "Star Trek". It almost comes closer to the category that a Pixar movie would fall into.

 

I can definitely say that "Avatar" is one of the most visually exiting and beautiful-looking movies of the year, but can I therefore say that it deserves an award for the cinematography? Because such an award would go to the cinematographer, not the host of designers and animators who worked on the movie. I'm not trying to knock the cinematographer's contribution, but this sort of movie, so heavily created in post, begs the question of what is photography and cinematography and who should get the lion's share of credit and awards?

Personally I really didn't see any shots in this film that had any awe-inspiring artistic quality. Cinematically, other than the 3D, it's a pretty basic film. The 3D technology is interesting (though old, and probably outdated in my view), but it really didn't add any kind of emotional weight to the film. All the shots in and of themselves were fairly basic (though good).

[Mei Lewis]

As we get into award season, what do people think about whether "Avatar" should get a "best cinematography" nomination? I know we pay lip service to the notion that a CGI animated feature like "Wall-E" has cinematography in it, but are we prepared to give out a cinematography award to an animated film?...

 

The VFX show's latest episode is about avatar

http://blog.vfxshow.com/?p=341

and some of what is discussed is relevant to your question.

 

They had some kind of hardware virtual camera rig. Cameron could 'perform' camera moves while looking at a realtime display based on where he was pointing.

 

I imagine it as something like the action replay mode of many sports video games. The action has already happened and is recorded, and as you watch it you're free to move the viewpoint however you like.

[Mei Lewis]

Would it be giving anything away if someone could explain how or why the aliens speak perfect English? I've seen the trailer.

 

It's stated in the film that in the past Sigourney's cat character had run a school for the natives.

When Jake convinces the natives to let Sigourney back into the camp it's said that it's the first time she had been there since the school closed.

 

I don't think it's ever explicitly stated but it seems reasonable that she taught some of the natives English as she was learning their language.

 

 

---------

 

 

Now, if the humans need those electronic coffins to project to the avatar bodies, how do they get back?