Keep in mind that Avatar increased last weekend in England (yes, in its fifth week) so it's not really clear when you'll be able to see it in London. I mean, the domestic take for this movie is impressive in its own right, but in some of the international markets it's literally acting like Titanic adjusted.cvxfreak said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Dabookerman
Member
Solo said:
To me it conveys a sense of intensity and hot pursuit. I dunno. It doesn't bother me.
Bourne is better than Bond
olololololOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLLOLOLOL!!
BertramCooper
Banned
This movie confuses me like few others have.
On the one hand, it's an exhilarating experience. An absolutely mindblowing moviegoing event. I've seen the movie three times (once in Liemax 3D, once in a regular screen, and once in RealD), and it's a consistently thrilling piece of cinema.
With that said, it's extremely hard for me to overlook the generic narrative. While it might have been a fairly original story when Cameron first conceived it, it sure as hell isn't now. I could see every single plot twist from a mile away, including
. That definitely bothers me. There's a very been there, done that feel to the script, and I think that really holds it back from being a masterpiece. It's a technical masterpiece, to be sure, but as a complete film, not so much.
That said, I'm really looking forward to the sequel(s). As long as Cameron expands the narrative into some new, uncharted territory (and I'm confident that he will), I'll forgive him for Avatar's bland story. I have a feeling that this franchise will be much greater than the sum of its parts.
As far as awards go, I won't be totally pissed if it wins Best Picture, but I certainly don't think it deserves it. I have no beefs with Cameron winning Best Director, though. The man certainly deserves that award.
On the one hand, it's an exhilarating experience. An absolutely mindblowing moviegoing event. I've seen the movie three times (once in Liemax 3D, once in a regular screen, and once in RealD), and it's a consistently thrilling piece of cinema.
With that said, it's extremely hard for me to overlook the generic narrative. While it might have been a fairly original story when Cameron first conceived it, it sure as hell isn't now. I could see every single plot twist from a mile away, including
Grace's death
That said, I'm really looking forward to the sequel(s). As long as Cameron expands the narrative into some new, uncharted territory (and I'm confident that he will), I'll forgive him for Avatar's bland story. I have a feeling that this franchise will be much greater than the sum of its parts.
As far as awards go, I won't be totally pissed if it wins Best Picture, but I certainly don't think it deserves it. I have no beefs with Cameron winning Best Director, though. The man certainly deserves that award.
I actually have the feeling this behind-the-scenes stuff is all getting publicized now largely as a push for Cameron as Best Director at the various awards, particularly the Oscars. It sort of negates a lot of the confusion about what direction means in a movie like Avatar and whether or not he deserves the award IMO, which is why I suspect that is their primary intention--much like their leaking the script was designed as a push for a WGA nomination. Between that, the advertisements, the continuing nominations and wins at various awards ceremonies, and Cameron booking an interview with pretty much every talk show in America, I'd say the Oscar campaign is in full swing. I don't know whether winning BP / BD will help Avatar's box office receipts that much (though even Titanic got a nice Oscar boost) but it always looks good on the DVD / Blu-ray and makes advertising easy.
Dabookerman
Member
jett said:
Yeah I know. But it hasn't been nominated for best VFX because apparently that would be unfair. That's just odd ;c
Dabookerman said:
SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS
AVATAR Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, Andrew R. Jones
DISTRICT 9 Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros, Matt Aitken
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE John Richardson, Tim Burke, Tim Alexander, Nicolas Aithadi
THE HURT LOCKER Richard Stutsman
STAR TREK Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh, Burt Dalton
wat
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
There's so much uninterupted fully CG footage in this film, that I have to wonder if at oscars they would be hesitant to nominate it in categories for regular movies, or if they'll nominate it as the best animated movie? There' s probably more time with full cg scenes here than in a typical 90 minute Pixar movie!
What I'm tryig to say is, where does VFX stop and full CG begins? To me it seemed like Avatar had more of the later than the former, in sense that I look at those things at least.
What I'm tryig to say is, where does VFX stop and full CG begins? To me it seemed like Avatar had more of the later than the former, in sense that I look at those things at least.
Ultimo hombre
Banned
Anyone have a list of the TRUE Imax theaters? I'm in the SF bay area.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Final Fantasy movie was acted much the same way (just with more primitive mocap), and it was probably considered animated movie? Also, in Avatar, there's so much stuff where the animators had to take over and animate things, as opposed to actor just doing some impossible stunts. Actually, even for regular stuff like walking around and such, you still need tons of animators time to patch things up.Bit-Bit said:
Lord Error said:
The most human part isn't the way we move. It's the way we emote. That is the performance of the actor being captured that no other animated movie has done. That is what takes AVATAR out of the animated movie realm to human acted realm.
Just look at Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol and compare that to any seen with Avatar Jake or Neytiri, it's a whole different ball game.
Dabookerman
Member
Sharp said:
Dead said:
jett said:
Are your guys joke sensers completely buster, or is it just me? I think it's just me.
Dabookerman
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Cloth would be simulated.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Lord Error said:
Lord Error indeed.
Remember the part in FF Movie where there were actually human characters on-screen acting with their CG co-stars?
Remember when FF Movie made most people forget they were watching a CG movie?
This is the most ridiculous comparison I've heard so far.
Littleberu
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
Yeaaaaahhh... No.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Littleberu said:
Have you seen any of the making of docs before you start talking out of your ass?
Discotheque
Banned
I almost feel sorry for the idiot that is Robert Zemeckis. Years of producing shitty mo-cap that gets trashed universally every time, and WETA knocks it out of the park twice! (LOTR Gollum and then the amazing look of Avatar's Na'Vi)
Instigator
Banned
Discotheque said:
Zemeckis still did it before (AVATAR) and did it on the cheap. Big difference. I always saw potential in some of the mo-cap he did, though it ages badly.
Discotheque
Banned
What'd he say??
I'm just annoyed that the man has completely abandoned live action film-making for some inferior mocap films. All of his films have the 'dead-eye' problem that wasn't even prevalent in 2002's Two Towers!!!
I'm just annoyed that the man has completely abandoned live action film-making for some inferior mocap films. All of his films have the 'dead-eye' problem that wasn't even prevalent in 2002's Two Towers!!!
Instigator said:
150 million for Beowulf and 200 million for A Christmas Carol is not on the cheap.
I don't know what's the problem with Zemecki's flicks: Sony Imageworks or Zemeckis himself, but it's really sad how he has been utterly trumped by Cameron. I look at Beowulf, and then at Christmas Carol and I see zero evolution. They look weird. They move weird. And they're just not even good movies.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Instigator said:
:lol :lol :lol
Beowulf and Christmas Carol were cheap?
Ok...
As far as Beowulf goes, it was on cable once while I was channel surfing and after a couple of minutes, I had to turn it off.
It looked horrible.
Haven't see Christmas Carol so I can't weigh in on that.
Littleberu
Banned
ryutaro's mama said:
Yeah... I think I might know much more how it works than... anyway. I'm not gonna argue here, just, okay, to believe that no animators went over the characters and tweak the motion capture is just completely absurd. That just shows how little you know about how it really works, or, maybe, how gullible you guys are.
Not it doesn't look godawful. It looks worse than Avatar, but it's not awful.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Littleberu said:
I think I may know a little more than you are giving me credit for. Your pompous, arrogant attitude is clown shoes.
Anyway, of course the mocap isn't just unwrapped and applied to the models as is. Yeah, there is a LOT that the animators do to tweak the anims and get them right.
What I was arguing was the fact that, UNLIKE OTHER FILMS, the actual actors were involved in the process and it was for example, Zoe's data being recorded as opposed to Zoe standing in a VO booth while some other mocap actor performed the needed capture.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I never said there weren't parts of this movie that were just real actors, or actors and CG together - but a very large part of the movie is 100% CG imagery. Also, taking FF movie was a bad example - I should have used Beowolf as an example. That one also has real actors on the stage doing mocap, facial performance cap, and voices - it just doesn't look as good because tech and animators behind were nowhere near as good.ryutaro's mama said:
So let's say as a thought experiement (because I really want to know what people think about this scenario, instead of seeming like I'm knocking down Avatar in some way) that Zemeckis' next mocap movie uses this same exact technology, same exact studio, same exact visual results - but it eliminates those scenes where Avatar has living actors on the screen and just stays with 100% CG imagery scenes.
Would that now be considered animated movie, or would it be considered more like live acted movie that Oscars would put to compete against movies that are 100% with living actors on the creen?
ryutaro's mama
Member
Lord Error said:
Perhaps.
Lord Error said:
It wouldn't matter how it is "considered", animated movies can be nominated for best picture. There's only been a case of that so far, Beauty and the Beast. With 10 noms this year(which is kinda cheating
) Up may be the second one.In the case of Zemeckis, in wouldn't matter one way or the other because his CG movies are trash and they aren't going to get nominated for shit.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I see - I wasn't sure how that works. I know they introduced the "Best Animated Movie" category, for what seemed no better reason than to prevent animated movies competing against live acted movies.jett said:It wouldn't matter how it is "considered", animated movies can be nominated for best picture. There's only been a case of that so far, Beauty and the Beast. With 10 noms this year(which is kinda cheating
In the case of Zemeckis, in wouldn't matter one way or the other because his CG movies are trash and they aren't going to get nominated for shit.
I'm all for the equality in how the movies are treated btw, and I didn't like how they had that category added.
Lord Error said:
The amount of animated movies kept ramping up every year so it made sense to introduce a category specifically for the genre. Pixar is probably the most affected by it now, I mean you look at Pixar movies that have won Oscars and you compare them to the other nominees and there's a massive gulf in quality. I mean those movies just have absolutely no chance. Without that category movies like Ratatouille and Wall-E would have have probably been up for best picture.
Still its nice to see the guys behind those movies being rewarded with oscars.
Getting a nomination is one thing but winning best picture is a much harder thing to accomplish. Discotheque
Banned
It's nice to see animated films win Oscars. But hellllll naaaaaaw to the over-rated Up.
Aside from the first 10-15 minutes the rest was typical kid-movie fare. I think the one film that should have had a chance at being nominated for best picture in recent memory would be Wall-E.
Also now with the academy so stupidly expanding their nominations to 10 for best picture they're going to have to throw in some random crap that shouldn't have even had a chance like Hangover and Star Trek.
Aside from the first 10-15 minutes the rest was typical kid-movie fare. I think the one film that should have had a chance at being nominated for best picture in recent memory would be Wall-E.
Also now with the academy so stupidly expanding their nominations to 10 for best picture they're going to have to throw in some random crap that shouldn't have even had a chance like Hangover and Star Trek.
KolosLazar16
Member
If you don't want to see Zoe's nipples, don't go searching for them.
Discotheque said:
I think it's a complete bitch move to open up best picture to 10 noms. It doesn't even fucking matter in the grand scheme of things, "academy voters" send in their ballots before the nominations are out.
The only point of this thing is to please the studios so they can stamp their "NOMINATED FOR XYZ OSCARS" sticks on more video covers than before. Black-Wind
Member
. . . I c . . . >_>chaoticprout said:
(Ninja jumps away!)
Dabookerman
Member
chaoticprout said:
Her real nipples?
- Status