So here comes the Game Changer.
... To observe Cameron directing "Avatar" is to witness filmmaking as it's never been done before. Whereas most movies add all of their visual effects in post-production, Cameron was able to see fully composited shots in real time: The actors he was directing may have been performing in front of a blank green screen, but Cameron's camera eyepiece -- not to mention giant 3-D television monitors -- immediately displayed lush, synthetic backgrounds ...
"The revolution, the change that Jim has brought about is that for the first time the CGI-created characters have a reality and an emotionality that completely conveys the actors' performances," said Tom Rothman, co-chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. "That was the big leap -- that you would care about a CGI-created character."
Uh ... I guess these folks have never seen any other CGI-created characters before.
Maybe Avatar will be the greatest piece of movie-making since The Wizard of Oz, but when I saw the trailer in glorious Big Screen Three Dee, I thought:
"Gee. It's J. J. Abrams' Star Trek meets Bill Kroyer's Fern Gully."
Which, I donno, might catapult us to new new heights in feature-length entertainment, but swear to God, I just don't see it.
Somebody please educate me, quick. Because when I see moving foregrounds, moving backgrounds, and lots of tumbling actors all wrapped inside three dimensions, I get a headache.
OTOH, it will undoubtedly have a stupendous opening weekend, it might be totally enchanting despite the trailer, and it has put a hell of a lot of animators and technical directors to work.
Posts
16 comments:
Tom Rothman is obviously an idiot with no knowledge of film or film history. And like Senator David Vitter, he's got a strange fetish for diapers.
The best thing we can expect from Avatar is it kicking christmas carol off as many screens as possible. It can't come soon enough.
Maybe the actual movie works better, but what I saw in the trailer looked equivalent to the average video game cut scene.
(yawn)
New players-same game.
All I can picture is Cameron like a latter day Dr. Frankenstein, shrieking hysterically "It's ALIIIIVVVVE!" .
Ive met Tom Rothman several times. I can confirm he's a mouth-breathing dimwit. Talking to him is like talking to a big dumb oaf, and all he cares about is money. He doesnt care about money first and filmmaking later, he cares SOLELY about making money.
The last Avatar trailer gives a much better sense of what the movie is about. I actually want to go see it now based on that last trailer. It sounds to me like it's a metaphor about the US going to Iraq...oh no...politics!
now I've done it!
r.
"That was the big leap -- that you would care about a CGI-created character."
Has this guy been under a rock for 20 years?
I just don't understand. People made such a big deal about LOTR's Gollum being a revolutionary work of CG imagery, and nobody made a fuss. Now, this is the first film that features LOTS of CG characters with the same level of realism as Gollum, and everyone is getting upset. I just don't understand. Maybe cuz they're blue?
The first Hulk was ground breaking too... It's not easy being green
Now, this is the first film that features LOTS of CG characters with the same level of realism as Gollum, and everyone is getting upset. I just don't understand. Maybe cuz they're blue?
Maybe it DOES have something to do with the design? I dont know, but those characters dont have the same "feel" as Gollum for whatever reason, and they were even done by the same studio. It could be the design, or maybe if they did facial performance capture and they look vacant in their eyes? Something definitely feels off though.
It may be the same level of realism, but not the same level of soul. (at least from the trailers...)
IMAX, people. See Avatar in IMAX. It works.
I didn't want it to, but it does. RLY.
Gollum never feels dead-eye or uncanny, but full of expressions and even emotions, even the sometimes jerking movements work for the character.
Avatar, video game so. It's not the "same realism" that matters because Gollum is not "realistic."
We saw the same thing as Beowulf and Rob Z in the trailers of Avatar, and coming from the same studio that did Gollum, I don't know why the FX feels so dated.
I honestly think it's the design of the characters, which, ultimately, is James Camerons fault. He's always had a better eye for filmmaking than character design anyway.
I always felt that Aliens and Terminator worked in spite of the designs. But since Avatar relies SO heavily on these not-so-great designs carrying (starring in) the film, it could be in trouble.
The gollum design was horrendous. Hated the over acting and the voice. Just because a character needs to be, say , 'ugly', doesnt mean the design hast to be unapealing.
As for the design on the Avatars, they don't bother me at all. Maybe they went too far with the big eyes, but I can deal with it...
R.
I saw an extended look on t.v. and it made the movie much more interesting to me than all of the other trailers I had seen. Up to that point I really was "meh" about the movie. Now I'm intrigued.
The gollum design was horrendous. Hated the over acting and the voice. Just because a character needs to be, say , 'ugly', doesnt mean the design hast to be unapealing.
Think you might be in the minority on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Post a Comment