• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

James Cameron's Avatar & The Way of Water (SPOILERS!)

So people think they look better after thirty seconds of photoshop work? I think that proves that it's not the CG people have a problem with, just the inhuman coloring.

Same hill The Hulk had to climb.


Personally, I think they look just fine. Hope the movie is good. :)
 
elbarto1 said:
reave said:
Tubes said:
I think part of the reason why the effects don't look photoreal is because the character design is far enough out there that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Especially when humans and Na'vi mix.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You don't believe it, because you've never seen anything like it in the real world.

As far as the aging clip goes, seems pretty decent, but there's a little too much "dirt", imo.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that, the aliens from district 9 looked closer to what I'd call "photorealistic" and they arent anything I have seen either.
Click to expand...

Exactly.... Look, the movie is probably good... I'm just trying to say maybe Cameron should have kept his "King of the world" speeches to himself this time. He hasn't done a narrative film in quite awhile.... I think a lot of people want to see him do it again, so it's good he's back in the game.

However, I recall being excited about a filmmaker returning to take the helm again....And it didn't go well..... (cough...GEORGE LUCAS....cough.)

In all seriousness... I'll be there to see the flick, and I hope he really does give us a great story.
 
elbarto1 said:
reave said:
Tubes said:
I think part of the reason why the effects don't look photoreal is because the character design is far enough out there that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Especially when humans and Na'vi mix.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You don't believe it, because you've never seen anything like it in the real world.

As far as the aging clip goes, seems pretty decent, but there's a little too much "dirt", imo.
Click to expand...

I dont buy that, the aliens from district 9 looked closer to what I'd call "photorealistic" and they arent anything I have seen either.
Click to expand...

Right, I agree that the D9 aliens were easier to digest, but I think that's because they in no way were humanoid, more prawn-like. :grin:
 
Hey, Blueyoda, meet BlueSigourney:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1qPLMlz01yQ/S ... +10.44.jpg

Now that the 15 minutes (or so) 3D footages has been shown, a lots of positives reviews arise:
- I'm here to admit one thing (after complaining about Avatar's CGI)... : I was wrong, and Cameron was right.
The trailer and even artwork and pictures, are completely misleading...
I saw the footage on IMAX, and man... I'm eating my words now... Avatar it going to be THE MOVIE EVENT of the decade...
My hope is restored and I'm a believer... (not that anybody cares)
My recommendation to all complainers (like I used to be)? Do not judge Avatar just jet...

- I have seen the AVATAR preview in 3D in IMAX, and it was impressive. The Navi were convincing, though not perfect. At least not all the time. In some instances, they looked like real actors with prosthetic make-up on.
 
Thats what I was hoping to hear. :grin:
your comments are echoed by almost everyone over on IMDb that claim to have seen the IMAX preview. I have not but am glad to hear that the 2D internet trailer doesnt do the film justice.
Thanks for the info TMBTM!
 
elbarto1 said:
Thats what I was hoping to hear. :grin:
your comments are echoed by almost everyone over on IMDb that claim to have seen the IMAX preview. I have not but am glad to hear that the 2D internet trailer doesnt do the film justice.
Thanks for the info TMBTM!
Click to expand...

I guess Cameron knew that a 2D teaser on a PC screen would not make a good hype.
That's why he made the "avatar day" with the 15 minutes 3D preview. To balance the possible bad feedbacks about the teaser (although it is quite good overall).

With the teaser you keep everyone hope a bit low (always good for a movie, so you're pleasantely surprised in the end) but you still have positive reviews about the 3D 15 minutes preview so people keep their interest on it and wants to make their own opinion by themselves on december.
Smart... very smart...
 
I don't think the 3D will make a bit of difference to me because 3D has never worked for me. I've tried watching 3D movies with the red/blue glasses and I couldn't even see the picture properly, might have something to do with one eye being weaker than the other, and even when I went to see My Bloody Valentine 3D at the movies all the RealD 3D glasses did for me was stabilize the picture.
 
Frantic Canadian said:
I don't think the 3D will make a bit of difference to me because 3D has never worked for me. I've tried watching 3D movies with the red/blue glasses and I couldn't even see the picture properly, might have something to do with one eye being weaker than the other, and even when I went to see My Bloody Valentine 3D at the movies all the RealD 3D glasses did for me was stabilize the picture.
Click to expand...

Problem with the red and blue glasses was that you need the exact good tint to watch the movie properly. Other than that you still see a bit of the second picture where you should not. Not to mention that at that time the directors tried to make the effect bigger by emphasis the difference between the two pictures which resulted in an impossibility to focus the eyes on one point. A total mess most of the time.
Now I only saw 2 movies in recent 3D (Ice Age 3 and Up) and the 3D was VERY good. Best I ever seen. You see that the effect guys took care not too have over the top 3D all the time.

But if you have a weaker eye I guess you may have problems to see 3D indeed.

One funny stupid thing I tried was to watch about 15 minutes of a movie with one eye closed...
I don't know if I imagine things, but I have the feeling that the brain try to recreate a kind of 3D sens.
So after 5 minutes it was almost like I was watching a 3D movie on my simple TV!
But I have a lot of imagination... :lol:
 
What type of glasses are required for avatar? surely not the old B/R ones?
I saw superman returns in Imax 3D and we had those polarized glasses.
also, is the whole film (avatar) in 3d or just select scenes? because those glasses give me a headache.
 
I would assume that they'd be the RealD 3D glasses, the ones that look like sunglasses but aren't, like every other 3D film of recent years.
 
From IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0953021/

It's only August but tickets for James Cameron's much-hyped 3D sci-fi movie Avatar, which is scheduled to open on December 18, have already cone on sale. The Hollywood Reporter said that tickets for the midnight premiere at 75 AMC locations, most of them featuring IMAX 3D screens, are now available through online ticketers MovieTickets.com and Fandango. "Tickets being put on sale for a film four months in advance is unheard of," MovieTickets executive vice president Joel Cohen told the trade publication. "The fact that tickets have already been sold really speaks to the tremendous buzz the film has already created and the power of James Cameron at the box office." Fox distribution exec Chris Aronson said that it was AMC's idea to put the tickets on sale -- even before the chain had a rental deal for the movie -- after seeing fans pack the theaters for a free 16-minute preview of Avatar. "They said that if all these people are going to come to our theater to see 16 minutes of a film that doesn't open until December, let's give them an opportunity to buy tickets to the first performances of the show itself." »
Click to expand...

:shock: Wow!
 
Why is this movie getting so much hype? Is it because it's based on some much loved sci-fi novel or is it just because it's James Cameron's return to sci-fi?
 
Frantic Canadian said:
Why is this movie getting so much hype? Is it because it's based on some much loved sci-fi novel or is it just because it's James Cameron's return to sci-fi?
Click to expand...
This is the return of J.C on earth (well on Pandora more exactely)!
And also because J.C promised us a lots of things concerning his return and people are heavily debating about it.
Fortunately with this J.C we only have to wait four months! :smile:
 
Somehow, I found this trailer to be far more entertaining than Fox's official trailer :p :
[youtubewide:1azg9jxx]
 
I saw the poor leaked version of the new 3:30 trailer, and even in that poor quality it is much better than the first IMO.
I think I'm sold.
Can't find a link anymore though.
 
JasonN said:
I thought the rumors that James Cameron had ripped off the CG crapfest Delgo to make Avatar were pretty laughable, but this post on Topless Robot about the 1959 novella Call Me Joe by Poul Anderson definitely raises my curiousity:
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/10/is_avatar_ripping_off_a_50s_sci-fi_story_probably.php

If it's true, then Cameron might be in for one hell of a lawsuit after Avatar arrives in theaters. :roll:[/quote too

I saw that too. That's pretty f#*ked up right there.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom