Avatar?

+1 That would be sweet.

 

Wait a sec...the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park (first movie) don't look real anymore? I saw that movie again a couple years back and they still look pretty good. I think that's because they didn't have much CGI back in the day so the close ups were with robotics.

Anyway, a friend of mine saw it in IMAX 3D and said it was really good, but said the plot was predictable. I'm really into plots and not graphics (big Wes Anderson fan here) and never got into movies like Star Wars.

I saw some Landing on the Moon in 3D IMAX yesterday at Cape Canaveral and it looked pretty good, but the frames of the glasses got in the way a little. You don't notice the 3D after a while...

I'm still waiting until 3D OLED tvs to come out...been waiting YEARS for that.

 

In reference to Jurassic Park I was referring to the CGI dinosaurs as not holding up. The animatronic T Rex holds up great.

if you arent into Star Wars and those types of over the top myth based fantasy films you probably wont like Avatar.

 

Did anyone catch the name of the production company - Dune Entertainment? Any connection to the movie?

 

Dune Entertainment , from what I understand, arranged for partial financing but were not involved in any creative capacity. In fact none of the partners in Dune even received a producer credit.

Dune Entertainment has nothing to do with the Herbert novels. They are however a very prolific company

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0174373/

James Camerons Lightstorm Entertainment was the primary production company.

 

Teenage emotional connection...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

District 9 was 1000x better in terms of story/depth/complexity of meaning. Case in point: the slums used in filming are real slums outside Jb. Real human beings live in that. The protagonist alien's name is a reference to "white washing" native names so whites could easily ID them. The list goes on and on. Anyone who actually has been in a 3rd world refugee camp will know how bone chillingly accurate some of the visual scenes are, as well as interactions between the different 'species.' In that movie, you really can just replace alien with culture.

Avatar is too superficial...it tries to whisper symbolism with a loudspeaker hooked up to an amplifier. You have to really try hard not get the messages/intent. Still loved the movie though.

 

Can't really compare but its still pretty cool

 

What he said.

Most movies bore me to death. A few entertain me. This one blew me out of the water into a different sphere.

 

Thats exactly how i felt although i do love watching movies

 

Here is a link to some of the behind the scenes showing the technological film making breakthroughs as far as CGI and performance capture.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/110975/making-a-scene-avatar

 

Thanks!

 

I saw some test footage of Johnny Depp in a movie coming out next year. It's impressive for sure. Although it's a character you see on the screen, you can see Johnny's mannerism's pretty clearly.

But, I still question if it's really acting or just a computer making images. Somehow, you feel removed. In fact, they are all avatars and not really "real". I think that is my problem unless you are really making a cartoon.

 

But if you watch the clip they show that they are "creating" the avatars through the 3d modelling or whatever of the actors actually performing for the scene. Like Cameron said, he didn't like get actors to act out the parts where they were human then send them home and spend 2 years on the CGI, the actors were an essential part of making the avatars/natives as realistic as possible

 

Ok, my turn.

I finally saw it in Imax 3D today. Visually a 12 on the 10 scale.

Plot? 3. Maybe.

I can see the real-world sequel now, and I can sum it up in one of Cameron's lines

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

No tech base, no orbital capability, no chance in a protracted struggle. The Aztecs scored some early victories, but big money potential and a technological imbalance can have only one long term ending.

 

Visually off the scale yes....but what the heck....all that nature stuff and not one sight of the so called rock that cost millions.

 

It was in there. Heck, it was in the commercial. They never manage to actually recover any more of it from under the big tree which is why we don't see it often






I think the "overhype" of this movie has killed it for some. I think a lot of people are really picking this movie apart because of how hyped up it was.

Overall, it was a good movie. Yes, it had some holes in the plot but the effects were off the scale and in the end, he made it work so long as you don't think TOO much into it.

It "flowed" well when i saw it and i left feeling pretty stunned/shocked at what he had done.

I'll probably see it again too before they stop showing it in theaters

 

Actually you are wrong, thats what was so great about this movie, is the fact the characters had emotion and you had a connection with them. James Cameron actually made them come to life, a problem that Lucas had with the starwars Prequel. Cameron got it right. What an amazing movie

 

Weta Digital got it right... mostly because they had done it twice before with Gollum in Lord Of The Rings and Kong in King Kong. They really are the masters of Mo-capped digital characters.

 

The thing about Cameron is he has a way of pushing people beyond what they feel they can do. So he has to be given a lot of credit. Look at all his films and each one (except True Lies) was groundbreaking in some way.

Ive been hearing about the Hobbit tests based on the Avatar tech....supposedly it is another leap ahead of Avatar.

Im pretty good friends with the WETA people. I think part of the reason they are so good and innovative is they ARENT anywhere near Hollywood. They are in Wellington NZ and they just do their own thing.

Ive also heard from friends at ILM that Lucas is pretty pissed off they arent considered the best anymore. Gotta chuckle at that one.

 

Name one.

 

Plot holes?

1) The whole ending. Sorry, but the savages -will- get their butts kicked.

2) They use the 'low gravity' excuse to justify the large trees and floating mountains, but everything moves normally. Filmmakers did a better job simulating low gravity back in 69 when they faked the moon landings ( )

3) Piss poor tactics by the professional soldiers, specifically chosen by the filmmaker to allow the natives to win.

4) The hero's avatar survives the mother of all forest fires essentially unhurt, while everything around him is literally scorched earth.

 

There are a bunch in this thread. Don't get me wrong, i loved it. I'm just trying to see it from someone else's perspective

 

These aren't plot holes. These are matters of opinion. A plot hole is something that was missing or makes no sense.

Yesterday I was watching "Alien" again and the "artificial gravity" switch in Nostromo pissed me much more off than the floating mountains in Avatar (which didn't affect the story, but just made it more enchanting and reminded me of album covers from "Yes").

 

Couldn't agree more-I was waiting for Costner to make a cameo....