George Ebersole

It's a nice piece. Certainly better than a lot of other CGI I've seen. No question about it. I posted that any shot (specifically SFX) that calls attention to itself in a bad way is just as good (or bad) as CGI. To me there's an artistic immediacy about Whitlock's better work that you don't get with a lot of CGI. I think a lot of that's also due to slower film stock used during Whitlock's career.

Yeah, artistically the message is that you need to be addicted to things that are important, because those are the things that are truly beautiful. The outdoors, girls, conversing with friends and neighbors, that kind of thing. The ugly stuff is what keeps you from being a true independent; playing soldier at a computer terminal. I'm guessing that's part of the reason the main character couldn't walk. I guess that's why a lot of the critics are giving Avatar high praise. Like I say, I totally missed that. Oh well. The technical achievement I guess I see as a logical next step in theatrical exhibition. Like someone else here said, the film seemed to get taken down a stop with the glasses, but if you can get by that, then you should be good with watching the film. As far as CGI goes, to me at least, it's like any other SFX tool. It's either subtle, unnoticeable and brilliant, or it sticks out like a sore thumb. But then again that goes for a lot of normal shots as well. Ruairi Robinson's got a point about CGI improving over the years. The first uses of CGI ("TRON" and "The Last Starfighter" come to mind) gave some pretty impressive results. I always wondered if graphics would improve to the point where I could render something like that on my old 386. In some ways, but not in others. But, in terms of film making types, I'm an "old guy", so I sometimes look at stuff through jaded glasses. Occasionally I need younger folks like you all to kick me in the ass and remind me that I haven't seen it all :) Negative Avatar stuff, or what I think I find most bothersome; I guess what I was expecting was maybe something a bit smarter in terms of the Navi going after the Terran Marines. A few more skirmish sequences or something. Not sequences to pack the film with action, because it has plenty of that, but something to show a typical Terran/Navi engagement, and to get a taste or feeling for what they see in one another. I think that's what was missing for me. I've bitched and whined about it on other BBSes regarding retreading and borrowing other elements from other sci-fi films, and for what I see as obvious market demographic film making, but I think what really bothers me is that the film, in terms of story, was fairly black and white (no pun intended). Future 3D films though... I'm still not sure. I guess if that's what people want to see, then sure. Me, I still like black and white films, though you rarely see one get shot today. That verse silent films which, unless they're really extraordinary (and a lot of them are), I really don't like. A silent film has to be really something for me to want to see it again. A B&W film less so. A 3D film? I just don't know. Maybe, maybe not :huh: I hope that doesn't sound too geeky, but the point here is that if you like the older tech and style, then that's probably what you're going to stick with. Maybe a newer generation'll look at "2D" films the way we look at silent films. I'm not really sure. My bet is that if Avatar hadn't been shot with the Pace, and just used a Red or F35 or whatever, I think there'd still be praise and criticism of the film for the same reasons. Anyway, I hope I didn't ramble too much here.

That's a great couple of points. Part of it is that I didn't see it in IMAX, so I think I missed some "awe-factor" in the viewing experience. The other notion that completely slipped passed me is the notion that the CGI "beauty" is supposed to be more appealing than the real world. Kids (or adults) who get addicted to drugs, computer games or whatnot and forsake real life is turned on its head. The addiction is always seen as bad, but in this case it's turned on its head and made to be a positive. I totally missed that. Now, having said that, and having a greater appreciation for what younger audiences are seeing in this film, ... I dunno, I guess I'm just not a CGI kind of guy when it comes to this kind of film. Just me. :)

I never saw the film. I'll kindly refer you to my previous answer :)

To me CGI in general looks like CGI. Admittedly I can't always tell what is CGI and what isn't, but SFX in general (CGI, minis, paintings or what have you) tend to stand out more when they don't work. It goes for any kind of SFX shot. To get back to my post you quoted, like I said the old matte paintings weren't always convincing in terms of realism. That piece on Whitlock shows some stunning work, but it doesn't always look real. That verse subtle CGI, which I've seen, and not so subtle CGI which really stands out. Just my opinion.

Albert Whitlocks work on Mel Brooks "History of the World", and some other bits and pieces. I remember back in 1988 or thereabouts I was watching some computer engineer of Chinese decent say "You can do anything in computers now", meaning photo-realistic images. I don't know about anybody else, but to me CGI still looks like CGI, and it now seems to be more expensive than hiring actors and/or locations for the shot a director or DP wants to get. Which I think is ironic, because that defeats the whole purpose of CGI in the first place; cheap and otherwise impossible shots. I liked Albert Whitlock's work (and some of the guys who trained under him) not because I always thought their images looked absolutely real (because they didn't always), but because they gave a real scope and authenticity that modern CGI just simply lacks. Whitlock's paintings add a kind of artistic scope that, to me at least, the best CGI today can't quite mimmic. For me, Whitlock, and other matte artists, were able to marry the unreality of the world the audience was looking at, to the reality of the world the audience needed to be witnessing. I think CGI, effectively used, could be just as emotionally provocative and visually dazzling as Whitlock's stuff, but I've yet to see that. Then again I'm not a teenager anymore, but I'd put the SFX in a classic film like "Spartacus" or "Ben Hur" any day against something like "Avatar" or "Transformers". Just my two bits. Back to writing.

Here's a montage someone put together from various shots. It's only sample, but to me the shots look fairly decent. The fact that it's a made for TV movie, to me at least, makes me nod my head in approval. The movie itself is just okay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUF0xH1OOVg

That's actually a real medical condition that happens with certain types of people who play FPS games, though they usually get nausea in addition to the headache.

Which is kind of a shame since the technology has been around, but probably not as portable as the "Pace". Still, a few more 3D films produced over the last 20 years or so to keep interest would have helped keep interest and evolve this new version of the art. But again, as cool as I thought Avatar was as a film by itself, the 3D didn't give me any "wow" moments. I hope this doesn't sound to snobbish, but to me a "3D" experience is going to see a stage play or something. I got more thoughts, but I'll wait until I can think of a better way to say them.

Well, there was actually a mix of animation styles being used. But make no mistake, TRON had actual CGI in it. The light cycles, the tanks, the carrier and the computer land scape and a few other things. I think even the "Master Control" computer dude was CGI. Things that weren't CGI were the little highlights that the artists put on the less important stuff. Like when Jeff Bridges character gets zapped and digitized, that's traditional animation. That verse the tunnel he travels through after getting zapped; that's CGI. Back in my younger days I'd work for a day or two as a SFX assistant or PA on various stuff, and would see some guy on stage peering through camera who wasn't the DP. Then you'd see the film get praised by some critic on TV, and they'd say how well the film was shot totally ignoring the fact that more than one guy was lensing the thing. Oh well. Me, I tend to ignore awards. There's so many of them now that I can't imagine one award being more important than the other. That, and there's so much good stuff out there that gets ignored anyway. I think TRON was one to get snubbed by most of the mainstream industry. It's not just a great looking film with a fun plot, but it's also pretty deep too, though most people don't realize it.

How disappointing.

"Tron" is probably the exception to the rule, but not because of its early CGI, but rather it was shot in 65mm (blown up to 70). There's a few shots in that film that would've been a piece of cake with standard 35mm stock, but were tricky with the larger format. I think back on all the stuff I worked on many years back, and I think when the awards were given there may have been a wrongful assumption that one DP was in charge of SFX as well as live action. So the FX shots are ignored in terms of cinematography, or fall under the umbrella of the film's DP.

Many years back I used to read "Millimeter". At the time it was one of THE trade magazines for the industry. It's still kind of around, but I think under a different name and publisher. There's also Variety, but that's not really crew oriented.

I guess it didn't work then. I'll try to find another solution.

How about "Kingdom of Heaven"?

I hope this works; http://www5.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID...ID=28076698027/ http://www5.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID...ID=28076708027/ http://www5.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID...ID=28078594027/ http://www5.snapfish.com/slideshow/AlbumID...ID=28076714027/

Sure, why not? Ice Road Truckers, eh? Don't get me started on American "reality" television. I remember in the 70s people were saying television couldn't get any worse with the gamut of one season or half season sit-coms. But they never foresaw alleged "reality TV". On the other hand if I was asked to work on one I'd snag the job like there was no tomorrow. It's work. Just like all those marketing kit videos I worked on in the 90s that aired on late night TV. Seriously though, shows I grew up with would never get produced today; Bonanza, Rifleman, Combat, Kung Fu, the Bionic MAN, or if they did, then it wouldn't be the show I remembered. Enough grousing.

It was a "bio-pic" of sorts, but had some adventurous elements. Some gunplay, a brawl or two, and a twist ending which was not foreshadowed. Apparently German TV has made a slew of these made for TV pics by mining their own history, but this last one, though respectably shot, was the least popular of the dozen plus titles that were shot. For a made for TV two parter film it had some impressive cinematography, and fairly high production values. The kind of thing you'd never see on American television.

Here're a screen cap from the first few minutes; Troja_6.bmp

Heh, well I have to admit that I am a bit of a Star Trek fan. ;) When I first got my classic ST DVDs I was pretty thrilled to have them in my collection, and still am. The downshot is that you can see a couple of imperfections. I think a C-stand comes into view here and there, you can see bits of Burbank on one or two of the exterior shots. There's a small list of mistakes, but I still enjoyed episodes. I agree with Mullen's observations on "The Motion Picture". To me the art direction is really superb, and a real effort went into making this an epic film. The overall look and shot composition, to me at least, really exceed all of the other Trek films cinematically, but the film itself lacked some story "umph" to put it over the top. In terms of directing I don't think there was a whole lot to be done to improve the film. Story wise I think a couple more action sequences were needed to really make this film the "Star Wars" of 1979. However the film had an appropriate "Trek" story and "Trek" ending, and was decent in spite of all the heavy emphasis on miniature work. Just my two bits.

Late to this long dead thread, but just in case it wasn't brought up before, I think Nicholas Meyer said on the commentary that he shot STII as a made for TV movie; budget and schedule. It's why the shots are pretty basic. I think Paramount tried to reuse this formula for their TNG theatrical films.

Those are pretty much my thoughts on it. Like John said the film borrows from lots of other sci-fi sources, but to me that lends to a kind of organic trait. You can point to where "Avatar" borrowed from movies A, B, C, D, but it was still entertaining. The more I think about it, the more I think that 3D would seem to be a genre unto itself. Just like a mystery, action film, drama or plain vanilla flavored science fiction, I think 3D does add to the visual experience, but it seems to be a niche genre. Kind of like film noire.

The camera itself is most likely different (or so I'm guessing), but I donned the same polarized glasses to watch the MJ film as I did to watch Avatar. To me that can only mean the same technology. It could be that I didn't see the film at an IMAX theatre, and so I wasn't wowed like a lot of the others (*EDIT* and therefore not as impressed). I'm curious if someone has seen this film more than once, and in both formats for a comparison. *EDIT* I'll see about the specs for the Captain EO film to make a comparison.

Hope I'm not beating a dead horse here, but here's the 3D film I saw 20+ years ago using the same technology utilized by "Avatar". My guess is the thing that makes "Avatar" innovative is the equipment is probably more compact.

I believe "Troja" translates as "Troy". It's about an archeologist searching for treasure that Helena hid during the final stages of the Trojan War, specifically during the sacking of Troy.