-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Memphis Reigns
Member
skyfinch said:
I found myself imagining what it would be like bangin her and that hot ass bod. Seriously WTF Cameron?
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Just came back from a showing. I feel like a dumbass not watching it in 3-D. It's the prettiest movie I've seen since Hero.
There were kids around that age in the theater where I saw it. They all loved it to bits.
GhaleonEB said:
There were kids around that age in the theater where I saw it. They all loved it to bits.
Scullibundo said:
Effects wise, Avatar is an extravaganza. It's like your parents denying you seeing Star Wars in 1977. Maybe.
But just hypothetically speaking, let's say this is the moment that 3D hits it big. Kids now will be in their twenties and discussing Avatar. Would you want your kid being the one who said that their mum wouldn't let them see it, so they never saw it in 3D?
Of course arguable whether Avatar will have the same cultural impact. Outside of nice graphics, I'm not sure it has the same sense of adventure that kids love. Avatar seems to be way more about 'cool factor' and less about fun. I have to admit wonderment is there though.
Isn't uncanny valley usually done to refer to the eyes of a CG character looking dead which then in turn makes them seem unrealistic? That doesn't exist here.maharg said:
And if you wouldn't call the CG revolutionary, then you're blind quite frankly. There has never been anything that even approaches it.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Combine said:I definitely heard a few whistles in my theater for some of her appearances.
Don't blame them.
This quote applies to both things being discussed right now..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121901456.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121901456.html
Meier said:
As has been said several times, it refers to CG of *real* things looking just slightly off enough that you notice the difference all the more. Movies like Polar Express or the new Christmas Carol hit it because they're rendering humans.
Aliens don't apply to the concept. They are alien by nature. And the humans in the movie were all (or at least mostly) actual human actors in front of a greenscreen.
I always assumed that the uncanny valley only applied to human CG characters, and that it became mainly apparent with faces, as we, as humans, have millions of evolution years of brain development into being able to make sense of subtle changes in face expression. If something is slightly off executed, our brain goes into "I am looking into something weird" mode and uncanny valley comes in.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Was a bit indifferent to the story, but the cgi was incredible.
He over delivered.
And my god the sound! During the initial strike I could feel it in my chest.
So glad I went imax.
AMAZING experience! Can't wait to see it again.
He over delivered.
And my god the sound! During the initial strike I could feel it in my chest.
So glad I went imax.
AMAZING experience! Can't wait to see it again.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I feel like the whole avatar "human mind in an alien's body" thing was thought of by Cameron to make some sort of MMO.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
While true, it doesn't really matter. Again, the definition of uncanny valley doesn't apply to obviously alien beings no matter how humanoid they may be designed.Jax said:
The Dolby screening I saw was. Then again, our theaters aren't really typical of what you'd see in public venues. ;Pjett said:O rly? Did it look just the same as the trailers do? don't exaggerate now.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Ok, now I have time to type my thoughts.
The movie was amazing. The plot may be a rehash of many things, especially Dune, but it was told in such a way that it felt new and fresh. One thing that I think it beyond criticism is the visuals. Cameron knows how to shoot a damn good looking film, and how to make every penny spent on the budget visible on screen. If this movie cost the $250-$300 million it is rumored to have cost, it certainly looks light years ahead of Pirates 3 and Spider-Man 3 which had budgets hovering close to $300 million. (HOW? Really.).
The 3D effect at first was very neat but looked extremely artificial. It literally looked like bad blue screen work for the first few scenes to me. But then, once Jake entered his Avatar body, it all seamlessly flowed together. From that point on the 3d was just impeccable and shows how effective it can be with a true master directing. (The rearview mirror shots were very cool). The 3d also helped sell the sense of scale of many things on the planet. I know I got queasy during one shot where Jake was very high up on a cliff and the perspective was looking down the cliff wall to show the height. The depth of field there was impressive and really sold just how high they were, and made me queasy from the height at the same time.
As far as the performances...Stephen Lang is a god. Just the newest ultimate bad ass to come from a Cameron film. And
I for one cannot wait to see it again, to see if the film holds up on repeat viewings. But you cannot argue that Cameron is a master director, even if you dont like his writing.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/cameron_is-recrowned_king_of_the_world.html
The movie was amazing. The plot may be a rehash of many things, especially Dune, but it was told in such a way that it felt new and fresh. One thing that I think it beyond criticism is the visuals. Cameron knows how to shoot a damn good looking film, and how to make every penny spent on the budget visible on screen. If this movie cost the $250-$300 million it is rumored to have cost, it certainly looks light years ahead of Pirates 3 and Spider-Man 3 which had budgets hovering close to $300 million. (HOW? Really.).
The 3D effect at first was very neat but looked extremely artificial. It literally looked like bad blue screen work for the first few scenes to me. But then, once Jake entered his Avatar body, it all seamlessly flowed together. From that point on the 3d was just impeccable and shows how effective it can be with a true master directing. (The rearview mirror shots were very cool). The 3d also helped sell the sense of scale of many things on the planet. I know I got queasy during one shot where Jake was very high up on a cliff and the perspective was looking down the cliff wall to show the height. The depth of field there was impressive and really sold just how high they were, and made me queasy from the height at the same time.
As far as the performances...Stephen Lang is a god. Just the newest ultimate bad ass to come from a Cameron film. And
the bastard just refused to die at the end. It took so much to put him down, but was awesome.
I for one cannot wait to see it again, to see if the film holds up on repeat viewings. But you cannot argue that Cameron is a master director, even if you dont like his writing.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/cameron_is-recrowned_king_of_the_world.html
jett said:O rly? Did it look just the same as the trailers do? don't exaggerate now.
actually yes. vs the HD video you can grab and match on my HDtv, yes. Best gauge of colouring is well, the sky mountain sequences. Exactly like what I saw on my 52" tv at home. Bright, green, naturalistic, beautiful
my mate saw this last night and the sms I got from him said:
HOLY FUKN SHIT HOLY FUKN SHIT
I saw this earlier today. I have to admit, I was skeptical going into the film. I refused to buy into the hype and wasn't overly impressed by the trailers. Coming out of the film, I was blown away. Sure, the story wasn't the greatest but the effects were simply incredible. The 3D effects added so much to the overall atmosphere of the film. Pandora was such an amazing sight - I was blown away at everything about the world and the Na'vi. It wasn't a perfect film (far from it) or even my favorite film of the year, but the sheer experience of seeing this movie and the world Cameron created in glorious 3D and IMAX was easily one of the best times I've had at the movies in a long time.
Can't wait to see it again - I know that I have to go at least once more in theaters, I don't know how this will hold up in 2D at home.
Can't wait to see it again - I know that I have to go at least once more in theaters, I don't know how this will hold up in 2D at home.
Since people are having trouble with it here is:
30 Rock - The Uncanny Valley Expalined in Terms of Porn and Star Wars
It's a step forward, but "revolutionary" seems pretty hyperbolic. I wouldn't say it's light years ahead of everything else -- just refining stuff to a great level of detail.
30 Rock - The Uncanny Valley Expalined in Terms of Porn and Star Wars
Meier said:
It's a step forward, but "revolutionary" seems pretty hyperbolic. I wouldn't say it's light years ahead of everything else -- just refining stuff to a great level of detail.
polyh3dron
Banned
Oh dear, this movie will spawn a new generation of furries that must be commanded to yiff in hell.Combine said:I definitely heard a few whistles in my theater for some of her appearances.
Disagree. I can't remember another movie in history where there hasn't been at least a single scene that just didn't feel right.. not the case here. And that's with literally every scene being full of CG. It's unparalleled. It's the biggest step forward in visual effects since Jurassic Park -- unquestionably.border said:
I think there's plenty of greenscreen work in the film that doesn't look quite right, and plenty of CG that still looks like obvious CG (mostly the creatures and the Na'vi).Meier said:
I can't quite tell whether you're arguing that the film is literally flawless and photorealistic, or just free of significant blemishes.
Solideliquid
Member
Yeah, I'm not sure that 7 year old children need to be watching a three hour scifi arrow piercing extravaganza.Scullibundo said:
CassidyIzABeast
Member
border just doesn't wanna eat his crow
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
border said:
Yeah. The effects were jaw dropping in motion. But close ups of the creatures felt like they didn't received the same kind of effort as the smurfs did.
FleckSplat
Member
I remember on an episode of Big Thinkers on TechTV / ZDTV back in the day, they profiled Dilbert author/illustrator Scott Adams and he said something to the effect of:
Interesting in the context of Avatar.
If all of humanity can communicate instantly over a global network, how far away are we from God?
Interesting in the context of Avatar.
mrkgoo said:
I'd be more concerned about where they got all the crazy plants, giant trees, and giant gunboat helicopters from.
Seriously? I don't know what anyone could possibly be smoking to think the CG in this movie somehow doesn't look like CG. It's very good, but no one's going to mistake it for reality.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I wouldn't say that. It's the best of what's available in terms of tech with a handful of new breakthroughs in a few areas, combined with various best practices from throughout the industry. What Avatar does is that, for the first time, a film tries to encompass all of that in all areas of visual effects, with practically no restriction - the film from the outset was planned to be a CG spectacle.Meier said:
John Knoll, our VFX supe who handled Avatar, put it best: "The reinvention (of moviemaking) is not in any one thing, but the sum total of all the procedures that were put into place. Performance capture, virtual cameras and digital S3D all existed before, but it's the best version of all of these things, the best practices of all these ideas put together in a high-quality, all-encompassing way."
Pretty good film with admittedly cliche as hell plot, backed up by absolutely breathtaking special effects and incredible use of 3d.
There were a couple times during the movie where I thought that someone in the row in front of me was standing up, but it was actually someone in the movie. How awesome is that?
It did make my eyes hurt though so I had to take the glasses off for a little bit every once in a while.
There were a couple times during the movie where I thought that someone in the row in front of me was standing up, but it was actually someone in the movie. How awesome is that?
It did make my eyes hurt though so I had to take the glasses off for a little bit every once in a while.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The talk of Dolby 3D having the brightest picture and best color is discouraging because I've seen it several times in the past and it looked dim as fuck.
There's evidence of almost all of GAF being guilty of that because of the Star Wars prequels.StoOgE said:
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
The CGI must look much better in the actual film on the screen, because while it does look amazing in the trailers on TV and in the theater, it is clearly CG and wouldn't be mistaken for anything else.
Haven't seen the film yet to comment beyond that, but the trailers don't make it look photorealistic at all.
Haven't seen the film yet to comment beyond that, but the trailers don't make it look photorealistic at all.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
maharg said:
A lot of the jungle looks completely realistic and there are many people who thought they shot a lot of it in an actual jungle.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I thought IMAX digital 3D was the one most people are saying as having the brightest picture, as long as it's a dual-projector setup?TAJ said:
And it's not out of the question for a Dolby screening to have a great display, it's all in the theater setup in the end, not the format necessarily.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I just remembered that I've seen a couple documentaries in LieMax 3D. It was really, really dim, just like the others. How can I find out which ones are dual-projector?XiaNaphryz said:
Arachnids, prawns, T-1000's and T-rexes don't exist, but it didn't really stop them from being mostly photorealistic. I never really bought the argument that this or that only looks like CG because you know it "can't exist". It's ultimately kind of a defeatist viewpoint, since you're admitting that anything unrealistic is going to always and forever look like CG.Zaptruder said:
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Oh btw, did anybody else notice there was no 'Are you out of your jarhead mind?!' They edited out the 'jarhead'. I love how hard and brutal the punch Quaritch gives Jake to the face seems.
cmonmanreally
Member
I have plans to go watch the movie tonight at a theatre that offers both the 3D and non-3D versions. The thing is, as much as I'd like to watch it in 3D, past experiences with it caused great strain in my eyes and made my head hurt. Will this be any different?
- Status