Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
@George Ebersole

I don't know what changed my perception, I only saw parts of it on my TV and the whole thing in IMAX 3D 70mm - nothing in between. Maybe it's my age and I'm unable to realize my "addiction/adaption to CGI" ;) but I would say that's not the case. I HATED the new green-screen Star Wars - stuff, I prefer the ones made before I was even born, I love big "real" sets like in "Titanic" or Dante Ferretis' work for "Gangs of New York", I even blame JC for using HD instead of 35/65mm film - but for me, Avatar was really a major breakthrough in CGI. Not just the technical aspect, but the artistic aspect of it and the implementation within the storytelling - my "old" :rolleyes: father saw it with me and agreed - he never played a single computer games besides sokoban :lol:

I don't think it's always the best solution (and that seems to be the opinion of JC himself).

 

It makes me a bit sad to see that everybody is just talking about the CGI-effects as some kind of gimmick, the box-office-results and why a movie which is seen by so many people cannot be good otherwise... :unsure:

 

 

 

I don't know much about the exact limitations and possibilities of todays robotic sfx-technology, but since Stan Winston (see what he has done in JCs previous movies :blink: ) himself (and his Studio) worked on Avatar but nearly all FX we see in the final film is CGI it's hard to believe that it could have been achieved with "puppets"/"robots". Maybwe it's a trade-off, giving an Ikran (the dragons) the last touch of real-world structure by using a real puppet but taking away it's movability!?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Saw "Avatar" this afternoon in an AMC IMAX-3D theatre that was almost entirely sold out. Talk about a movie having legs.

 

I liked its story telling even if a bit predictable (as others have commented, bits and pieces of other SF films).

 

The Na'vi's world was gorgeous, It's the first CGI I've seen where a natural world was so artistically created and portrayed.

 

A human actor controlling a CGI performance capture system to portray a human controlling an alien being? JC definitely was on a roll there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim Partridge
Albert Whitlocks work on Mel Brooks "History of the World", and some other bits and pieces.

 

 

Whitlock had his bad (human) days too- check out the shots of the missile bunker from Diamonds Are Forever at 6:06. Hardly on par with the shots from the likes of Bound For Glory or Badham's Dracula, and hardly representative of his talents or the potential/technique of matte art.

 

I think that shot is just as intrusively phoney looking as anything from the Avatar trailer. Check out any journalism on vfx from the 1970s and you'll read comparitive situations to today, where directors didn't want to use matte paintings or models because they only remembered the worst they had ever seen and didn't want to risk such a shot appearing in their film.

 

On the flip side, I think the Whitlock legacy has been continued as Mr Robinson hints into the world of CG. Check out how Matteworld enhanced a period Las Vegas for the Scorsese movie Casino, or the CG matte enhancements used to make a disused British airfield look like Miami Airport in Casino Royale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Slightly OT, but has anyone seen this film by Alex Roman? http://www.vimeo.com/7809605.

 

It's 99% CG, yet still beautiful, moving, and "artistic" (for lack of a better word). This is case where photorealistic CG does not bother me in the slightest, in fact I marvel at the vision and the work even more because of it. I wonder what you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Slightly OT, but has anyone seen this film by Alex Roman? http://www.vimeo.com/7809605.

 

It's 99% CG, yet still beautiful, moving, and "artistic" (for lack of a better word). This is case where photorealistic CG does not bother me in the slightest, in fact I marvel at the vision and the work even more because of it. I wonder what you guys think?

It's a nice piece. Certainly better than a lot of other CGI I've seen.

Whitlock had his bad (human) days too- check out the shots of the missile bunker from Diamonds Are Forever at 6:06. Hardly on par with the shots from the likes of Bound For Glory or Badham's Dracula, and hardly representative of his talents or the potential/technique of matte art.

 

I think that shot is just as intrusively phoney looking as anything from the Avatar trailer. Check out any journalism on vfx from the 1970s and you'll read comparitive situations to today, where directors didn't want to use matte paintings or models because they only remembered the worst they had ever seen and didn't want to risk such a shot appearing in their film.

 

On the flip side, I think the Whitlock legacy has been continued as Mr Robinson hints into the world of CG. Check out how Matteworld enhanced a period Las Vegas for the Scorsese movie Casino, or the CG matte enhancements used to make a disused British airfield look like Miami Airport in Casino Royale.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim Partridge

Aside from avoiding duping whereever possible (Whitlock was biased to original negative comps), I don't see any pluses in artistry and quality of illusion between Whitlock's glass work and the best digital matte art of today. What they both have in common is that whether glass or CG, most of them never get noticed by audiences of today or yesterday.

 

Anyway, remember this is matte painting we are talking about, and CG covers more than just 2D set extensions. It's not a solid argument comparing Whitlock's glass landscapes to a computer generated creature, as both set out to do completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was real CGI in it. Not for the "live action", that was shot on 65mm DXN, copied onto kodaliths, rephotographed through color filters onto VistaVision.

 

But vehiciles like the racing 'cycles and the flying ship were CGI, out put onto VistaVision.

 

I meant to say, originally, that there was no real CGI integrated with the live-action parts. Whoever made the first reference to "Tron" in this thread, made it sound, to me at least, as if the entirety of the effects in the movie were accomplished through the use of CGI.

 

It's been six years since I've seen it, but weren't there just a couple of sequences that were all CG, like the race through cyberspace between a bike and some other bizarre-looking ship, and the intersection of some computer virus with a mainframe computer? Then everything else was shot on 65mm '22 and the colors and "effects" were hand-drawn, traditional cel-animation.

 

 

Same thing in "Star Trek II," where the only CGI was the Genesis effect sequence and the graphics on the ships' computer monitors; I've heard people talking about how all the starships were CGI in the movie as well.

 

 

I am not of the opinion that matte paintings or cell animation are better or worse than CGI or vice versa. I think CGI can look more realistic than cel animation because it can use elements of real photographic imagery instead of relying on paint brushes, airbrushes, or pastels. CGI doesn't have as much of a tell-tale set of "artifacts" as hand drawn animation unless the resolution it is rendered at is too low.

 

Going back to the earliest special effects, Melies' paper mache and cut-outs, I feel is still a different field from cinematography. It used to be done in-camera, sure, but there was a great deal of work put in on the artists' end to make it all work and integrate well, something entirely separate from the actual photography of the movie. When you were putting effects onto film, it was a largely restrictive process, with limited camera movement or elaborate setups to integrate the live-action and effects elements.

 

Now it is an even more separated process with motion control and film recorders, and formerly composite photography. Most of the work is contracted out to highly-skilled artists. So I still don't see how any of the special effects processes, be they past or present, qualify as cinematography.

 

Saying that this type of work is a separate field isn't meant to be pejorative. That is like taking as an insult my saying that still photography and cinematography are two different fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Sorry, George, I missed your post here. Of course, you are right that these effects are CGI.

 

I thought at first you were referring to the entirety of the film, but upon re-reading it, you aren't.

 

 

 

 

Now, as to what John is saying on here, it almost seems as if you are being defensive of CGI. I admit a lot of us like to point out it's failings, but that doesn't mean that (at least most of us) we don't acknowledge its triumphs. "Avatar" certainly speaks to its improvements over the last 25+ years.

 

But you can't keep saying that it is something that it is not. I think someone should take the comparison further. A theatrical movie can't win an Emmy award. A television show can't take the Academy award for best cinematography, no matter how well it is lensed. Some people only work on television shows, or student films, or big budget Hollywood blockbusters.

 

Why can't you accept the far clearer difference between practical photography and effects imaging? The former is already there in the real world, it has to be arranged, set up, and imaged onto film. The latter has to be conjured up, rendered, drawn, animated, modeled. They're both creative imaging processes but they are as different as night and day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Sorry, George, I missed your post here. Of course, you are right that these effects are CGI.

 

I thought at first you were referring to the entirety of the film, but upon re-reading it, you aren't.

 

 

 

 

Now, as to what John is saying on here, it almost seems as if you are being defensive of CGI. I admit a lot of us like to point out it's failings, but that doesn't mean that (at least most of us) we don't acknowledge its triumphs. "Avatar" certainly speaks to its improvements over the last 25+ years.

 

But you can't keep saying that it is something that it is not. I think someone should take the comparison further. A theatrical movie can't win an Emmy award. A television show can't take the Academy award for best cinematography, no matter how well it is lensed. Some people only work on television shows, or student films, or big budget Hollywood blockbusters.

 

Why can't you accept the far clearer difference between practical photography and effects imaging? The former is already there in the real world, it has to be arranged, set up, and imaged onto film. The latter has to be conjured up, rendered, drawn, animated, modeled. They're both creative imaging processes but they are as different as night and day.

Not a big deal, Karl. I should've been clearer.

 

All the SFX stuff I worked on in my 20s was all miniatures, and I have to say that I never saw anything that I worked on that looked "real", though they looked convincing for what the message of the image was. The hokiest thing I ever worked on was an industrial for some network technology firm (circa 1990 I think), where they had a volcano rising out of the ocean, representing their mini-mainframe connecting a bunch of 486 and 386s. Not the dumbest shoot I ever worked on, but one of the most headache inducing (the SFX artist I was working for kept blowing his stack at me because he didn't like the gig).

 

The volcano didn't look "real" as such, but looked "professional". It didn't look like some paper-mache thing a kid made for the school science fair, but it didn't look real either. I think a lot of SFX fall into that category, and CGI has the advantage that processor technology keeps progressing. But like Karl said, the tool's only as good as the person using it, and even then it has limits.

 

On the upside, I really like that museum piece. To me that's smart artistic use of CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About a fortnight ago I was telling my brother that I had changed my mind about the movie; I don't like Avatar.

 

Avatar: The Abridged Script

 

It is a bad movie in my mind. We always speak about how the story should always come first, yet are ignorant when James Cameron pens a repetitive and cliche-ridden script. The imagery cannot make up for a bad movie.

 

Also, in American Cinematographer this month (page 42) there's a fantastic picture of Cameron, Worthington and Weaver on a motion-capture set: Cameron's serious and leading, Worthington looks absolutely clueless to what he's being told and Weaver has the demeanour of someone who hasn't felt physical human contact for several years, all while wearing blue Na'vi/Elf ears.

 

This is all irrelevant, however; it looks set to be the biggest movie ever made and I'll be left in the dirt bitter and as clueless as Sam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
About a fortnight ago I was telling my brother that I had changed my mind about the movie; I don't like Avatar.

 

Avatar: The Abridged Script

 

It is a bad movie in my mind. We always speak about how the story should always come first, yet are ignorant when James Cameron pens a repetitive and cliche-ridden script. The imagery cannot make up for a bad movie.

 

Also, in American Cinematographer this month (page 42) there's a fantastic picture of Cameron, Worthington and Weaver on a motion-capture set: Cameron's serious and leading, Worthington looks absolutely clueless to what he's being told and Weaver has the demeanour of someone who hasn't felt physical human contact for several years, all while wearing blue Na'vi/Elf ears.

 

This is all irrelevant, however; it looks set to be the biggest movie ever made and I'll be left in the dirt bitter and as clueless as Sam.

 

While I found the story to be formula and certain shots/scenes to be a pretty close rip-off, I do understand the need to play it safe on the story when you've got 300 Mil riding on a couple of gimmicks. As well, when you're asking the audience to absorb this much new and unique data, asking them to also swallow unique story elements might be too much. For me, the easy to swallow story and scenes made the peculiar 3D experience more accessible. Basically, I'm saying- how much unique information can the average viewer's brain take in at any given experience? I was okay-ish with the balance that the creators' chose in Avatar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, to a certain extent I disagree with you, but then I am in the small minority that even notices cinematography except when it's so bad that it is actually difficult to determine what is going on. (I liked the original trailer more than the revised version.)

 

 

I'd say that "Avatar" has spectacular-enough imagery to overcome a "C" grade script.

 

But again, I look at movies as a collective sum of their parts. Some people judge movies by just the effects, how many explosions there are, how much big-name talent is in the movie, or the ability of the script to scare or surprise them.

 

 

With regards to "biggest movie ever" it is really too bad the only qualifier for this is unadjusted-for-inflation box office receipts. I think total ticket sales would be a better determinant, especially with the extra 3D surcharge that theatres have inflating figures even more. Otherwise, isn't "Gone With The Wind" still the most successful movie ever? I think someone on here said that. Maybe it was just U.S. though.

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Gone with the Wind sold 18 Million tickets in 1939 in the US alone (if memory serves me). No film today even comes close to that number, so I suppose I can take some comfort in that. I do like Gone with the Wind.

 

We may have to agree to disagree; I wasn't sold by the imagery and I don't care for 3D. If it were another director would we call him on the sub-par story? I'd like to think so. Why is it seemingly Cameron gets a pass for mediocrity in narrative writing? I may be making wild and unfair judgements but if this story was in novel form wouldn't we all shrug at the non-entity of our readers experience? This is not Asimov or Clarke here. In interviews Cameron himself said you can't have a good movie without a good story. His standards for a good story must have fallen sharp somewhere.

 

Are we being paradoxically blinded by the wonders on screen?

 

My thoughts are out. I think I needed to expound. No win, no lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what we think of it, the proof is in the pudding:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...dc998544184f47e

 

1.6 Bil in 6 weeks. That's a bunch 'a cheese.

 

For someone so fond of cliches and quaint idiomatic philosophies, you should really know what your idioms mean.

 

 

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating," which has corrupted to "The proof is in the pudding" means that the true test of something's worth isn't it's recipe, but in the actual results.

 

So if your proof is the mere dollar amount, unadjusted for inflation, or 3D premiums, then you're right :rolleyes:

 

 

I think, at the very least, "top movie of all time" figures should be adjusted for inflation, and not count the 3D premiums. Then we'd get a far better sense of a film's success. After all, the COST of this movie is more than inflation since the 200 million dollar "Titanic," which was selling at an average U.S. price of $4.50 a ticket in 1997-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the people who criticize the story of Avatar simply do not like the fact that the story criticizes greedy corporations who have no regard for the welfare of the alien people who inhabit the planet but simply want to exploit them in order to turn a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the people who criticize the story of Avatar simply do not like the fact that the story criticizes greedy corporations who have no regard for the welfare of the alien people who inhabit the planet but simply want to exploit them in order to turn a profit.

 

That's not true in my case - aaaaaand, SNORE - grunt awake again - where was I, oh yeh ... I don't think I'm alone on that one either ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just seen Avatar, I must say that I wasn't that fussed about the 3D. I kept checking to see what looked like without the glasses and it actually looked better. The highlights were a bit strange with the glasses and some of the fast motion (I think we're in Thomas James country here) wasn't as good as in 2D. I also came out with a headache, which could be a projection issue. Unfortunately the 3D also tends to make everything more like a video game.

 

I've seen James Cameron's F950 rig at Pace, so I know roughly the way they were working with one camera they seemingly used.

 

There are lots of films about the story of big corporations, big countries invading smaller ones - it's quite similar to "Dancing With Wolves" in that regard, so I don't think people can be accused of disliking it for that reason. The small guy or the outsider facing up to the big guy is a pretty standard story line. The main theme seemed to be more eco than anything. The CGI looked good, with some impressive looking landscapes, but in the end I just felt why bother with the 3D? You just sit looking at the sub titles floating in space. Basically the film was too long for the story, everything was signposted in advance and the baddies were just pure cardboard cut outs and not really that interesting. I could sit through it no problem, but the 3D got in the way.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think that the people who criticize the story of Avatar simply do not like the fact that the story criticizes greedy corporations who have no regard for the welfare of the alien people who inhabit the planet but simply want to exploit them in order to turn a profit.

For me, my criticisms of the film weren't really with the film itself so much as all of the borrowing that had been done from other films to make this film. But even that wasn't so bad considering it was Cameron borrowing from himself (mostly anyway).

 

My other real beef with the film happens to be with how the film's marketing scheme was integrated into the film itself. As another friend of mine on another BBS said, it seemed like a group-think product from a marketing team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is really interesting, fellas. I've seen it three times. Every time, people came out of the theater happy and satisfied. I don't recall overhearing even one complaint. I'm not saying that every single person liked it. Just, generally, it appeared to be well received. So, my questions are: What did you expect? What would you have rather seen? Is it general things you were hoping for like more personal meaning? I'm just groping for questions, mind you. I'm not trying to imply anything about your opinions. I'm just curious what else the movie should have been to meet your needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
This is really interesting, fellas. I've seen it three times. Every time, people came out of the theater happy and satisfied. I don't recall overhearing even one complaint. I'm not saying that every single person liked it. Just, generally, it appeared to be well received. So, my questions are: What did you expect? What would you have rather seen? Is it general things you were hoping for like more personal meaning? I'm just groping for questions, mind you. I'm not trying to imply anything about your opinions. I'm just curious what else the movie should have been to meet your needs.

I went in with a blank slate, not really expecting anything from it. But, what I saw was a conglomeration of borrowed sci-fi and borrowed story material. Still, I enjoyed it as a film, but it seemed long, and it didn't seem "organic" as such. It seemed to include a lot of marketing strategy, and not so much one man's vision of a story he loves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wont be talking about it in 42 years like another rather popular and groundbreaking film

 

That 'popular and groundbreaking' film is certainly very popular among critics and film geeks, but has it even really been that popular with the general populace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...