James Cameron's "Avatar"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
If Cameron had perfected this 3D animation, he could have rendered all of the characters, humans and Navi, in CG and just use vocal talent. But he didn't, and that's because he, like everyone else, hasn't really beaten the uncanny valley.

And the prohibitive costs of making Avatar will ensure that these so-called advancements will only be useful for making sci-fi/fantasy blockbuster movies. What, are we going to see high-brow intellectual fare animated in 3D in the future? The latest low-brow rom-com? I thought not.
 
No spoken words said:
As for "real environs", what does that even mean? Are you telling me that a sound stage without a green screen is a "real" environment? Perhaps you're just in favor of shooting everything on location? Even period pieces? Do you own a time machine? If so, do you ever use it? If so, do you look towards the past or the future? If it's the future, do I ever get banned for calling you an idiot?
Click to expand...

Real environs can involve building props and sets out of real material. That's how they used to do it. Costumes, too. Those are real, not rendered.
 
Jive Turkey said:
As a photographer, I think you need to realize that in today's industry, if you are a photographer with no digital post skills, you are irrelevant (there are a few exceptions, of course).
Click to expand...

I'm a photographer, and I do use digital post-processing. What I'm referring to are people who manufacture whole images entirely using just photoshop and other images. I'm even saying that this is not artistic or unskilled. I'm posing the question for you to think about for yourself. What do you value more? I didn't say one way or the other which is better.
 
GibsonExplorer said:
I didn't. It's for you to think about.
Click to expand...

I did think about it... for a moment. I'm not sure why we're comparing the two to be honest. This thread has taken a bizarre turn and I'm not sure what we're really discussing any more.

So I'll just keep posting this: :panic:
 
And I'll post this:

stephen-lang-11.jpg
 
No spoken words said:
Cinema is actually about a few different things, not just one thing.

Maybe you'll one day remember, or perhaps learn for the first time, that what you seek out and enjoy most in a theater, or from a book, or from an album is not necessarily what others look for.

As for "real environs", what does that even mean? Are you telling me that a sound stage without a green screen is a "real" environment? Perhaps you're just in favor of shooting everything on location? Even period pieces? Do you own a time machine? If so, do you ever use it? If so, do you look towards the past or the future? If it's the future, do I ever get banned for calling you an idiot?
Click to expand...

:love:
 
If I'm following this correctly, CG is the enemy of cinema. :shifty:

Speaking of the uncanny valley, GibsonExplorer, which valley do you think is bigger, that between a stop-motion filmed animatronic puppet and reality or that between a state of the art CG animation and reality?
 
GibsonExplorer said:
I'm a photographer, and I do use digital post-processing. What I'm referring to are people who manufacture whole images entirely using just photoshop and other images. I'm even saying that this is not artistic or unskilled. I'm posing the question for you to think about for yourself. What do you value more? I didn't say one way or the other which is better.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate the aesthetics of shot-in-camera, processed in the darkroom film, I dont see how that lessens the artistic merits of photo montage style digital processing. I dont understand why you posed the question, if not to make a statement about digital being the lesser of the two.

GibsonExplorer said:
If Cameron had perfected this 3D animation, he could have rendered all of the characters, humans and Navi, in CG and just use vocal talent. But he didn't, and that's because he, like everyone else, hasn't really beaten the uncanny valley.
Click to expand...

Why would he want to mocap real people, render them in CG, and painstakingly rig and animate their faces and bodies, only to make them look the exact same way they already do?
 
If there's no Gorn fight, or slight reference to one in a following New Trek film, I'll be very disappointed.

THE GORN!
 
Diemen said:
If I'm following this correctly, CG is the enemy of cinema. :shifty:

Speaking of the uncanny valley, GibsonExplorer, which valley do you think is bigger, that between a stop-motion filmed animatronic puppet and reality or that between a state of the art CG animation and reality?
Click to expand...

First, there's no uncanny valley involved when you're talking about films like Coraline or Fantastic Mr. Fox. These films have characters and worlds that are very much cartoonish in appearance, and the fakeness is obvious, of course. Uncanny valley applies to films like Polar Express, CGI animation that attempts to make humans appear realistically human. How are stop-motion films even in this discussion?

Second, both Coraline and Fantastic Mr. Fox were far better films overall than Avatar. You don't need a $300 million budget to create an immersive world with talking animals. But I can't imagine someone who holds Avatar in such high esteem can even begin to appreciate the films I've mentioned.
 
Jive Turkey said:
jj-abrams-version-of-star-treks-salt-vampire-and-gorn-revealed

500x_gornpost-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting. I watched that Klingon Prison sequence, and as awesome as it was, I'm glad it was cut.

GibsonExplorer said:
Second, both Coraline and Fantastic Mr. Fox were far better films overall than Avatar. You don't need a $300 million budget to create an immersive world with talking animals. But I can't imagine someone who holds Avatar in such high esteem can even begin to appreciate the films I've mentioned.
Click to expand...

Coraline's story is as well-worn and simplistic as Avatar's, yet incredibly gorgeous. Mr. Fox is the most fun movie I've seen all year, then again, I'm a big Wes Anderson fan. He's a guy that gets the "style over substance" label thrown at him often, too, which is bullshit.
 
LMP said:
Coraline's story is as well-worn and simplistic as Avatar's, yet incredibly gorgeous. Mr. Fox is the most fun movie I've seen all year, then again, I'm a big Wes Anderson fan. He's a guy that gets the "style over substance" label thrown at him often, too, which is bullshit.
Click to expand...

If Wes Anderson made Avatar, I'd be all over that shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Reminder - Forum Downtime for Software Update Begins January 23, 2024.
Replies
0
Views
282
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
Forum Downtime - software update 1/23-24
Replies
13
Views
683
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Bluer White
Barbenheimer Discussions
Replies
3
Views
675
cobl04
cobl04
M
Ticketmaster app
Replies
3
Views
503
rosephile
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom