James Cameron's "Avatar" Thread v.3

[terry78]

Yeah, you do get that feeling you got when you saw Jurassic Park for the first time.

 

[spider-neil]

Yeah, you do get that feeling you got when you saw Jurassic Park for the first time.

cinematic jaw dropping moments for me

1. t-1000 morphs out of the floor - the cinema reaction to this was awesome t:

2. the first time you see the dinosaur in JP

3. seeing the jake wake up as a navi for the first time


I'm seen amazing CG like davy jones, LOTR, matrix, transformers etc but those moments listed above absolutely floored me when I saw it

 

[BLACK-SPIDEY]

cinematic jaw dropping moments for me

1. t-1000 morphs out of the floor - the cinema reaction to this was awesome t:

2. the first time you see the dinosaur in JP

3. seeing the jake wake up as a navi for the first time


I'm seen amazing CG like davy jones, LOTR, matrix, transformers etc but those moments listed above absolutely floored me when I saw it

I wish I could´ve seen that. .

 

[Heretic]

Cinematic jaw-dropping moments for me

The scene in The Unborn of Odette Yustman's perfect butt...and then...camel toe.

CGI can't top that.

 

[Apollo]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/13/new-photos-avatar-special-edition/

Nice! Sturmbeest Hunt. t:

 

[spider-neil]

is the 4th disk in the avatar ultimate edition going to be just the dvd copy of the movie?

 

[CGHulk]

I wish they'd release a higher resolution trailer for this, I"d love to see the new sequences in 1080p!

 

[Heretic]

Pixar is essentially following the rule of the uncanny valley...where when something is not real, it becomes interesting, but the more lifelike it becomes, the creepier it becomes. This is why people love robots, but are freaked out by robots that look and act very similar to humans (and why some CGI movies of human characters dont perform as well). By making their characters have more cartoonish features, they are grounding the movie in unreality, which has a much different subconscious effect on the viewer than trying to convince them that the cartoon is real.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Pixar is essentially following the rule of the uncanny valley...where when something is not real, it becomes interesting, but the more lifelike it becomes, the creepier it becomes. This is why people love robots, but are freaked out by robots that look and act very similar to humans (and why some CGI movies of human characters dont perform as well). By making their characters have more cartoonish features, they are grounding the movie in unreality, which has a much different subconscious effect on the viewer than trying to convince them that the cartoon is real.

Hi,

Maybe I missunderstood what you mean but the uncanny valley is not what you describe ( not 100% ) and Pixar is not following it ( they don't make movie with human looking character ).
Wikipedia quote "The uncanny valley is the region of negative emotional response towards robots that seem "almost human".

Also I am not sure if your conclusion about CGI movies which doesn't perform well is right. I would think that they don't perform well because they are bad ( like the first CGI Final Fantasy from 2000 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

 

[Heretic]

Hi,

Maybe I missunderstood what you mean but the uncanny valley is not what you describe ( not 100% ) and Pixar is not following it ( they don't make movie with human looking character ).
Wikipedia quote "The uncanny valley is the region of negative emotional response towards robots that seem "almost human".

Also I am not sure if your conclusion about CGI movies which doesn't perform well is right. I would think that they don't perform well because they are bad ( like the first CGI Final Fantasy from 2000 )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

My point was not that they are intentionally and faithfully going against the uncanny valley concept...just that they were doing it a little bit anyway, possibly by accident. If I led you to believe that they are TRYING to actually achieve the uncanny valley then I apologize...they are clearly going against it.

Uncanny valley does deal mostly with robots, as I mentioned in my post. However, the concept really doesn't necessarily have to end there. The same basic concept holds true for CGI, or theoretically some new, as yet uninvented technology like nanotech "people" or holographic images. The idea is that people like to see machines (or whatever the technology is) do things like humans do...but there is a line that can be crossed, when the technology seems TOO human...and therefore kind of creepy. This is evidenced very well by new robotic technology that looks pretty darn human, and therefore, kind of terrifying to many people.

Did Pixar have a board meeting about uncanny valley? I highly doubt it. However, when they are starting a film, they do make a conscious decision on design details...and they decide to look cartoonish rather than go for something realistic. This is purely because they think more people will like the more cartoonish design...which is going along with the concept of uncanny valley whether they realize it or not.

And what is or is not a good movie is entirely opinion, so I won't debate that.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Hi,

No need to apologize, my English understanding is good but not THAT good hence my erroneous response

but there is a line that can be crossed, when the technology seems TOO human...and therefore kind of creepy

Yes but when the construct ( in the example, a robot ) likeness of human ( motion etc ) becomes identical to human the revulsion feeling vanish again.

Wiki quote " However, as the appearance and motion continue to become less distinguishable from a human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-to-human empathy levels".

And what is or is not a good movie is entirely opinion, so I won't debate that.

Fair however Finaly Fantasy was really bad ( just teasing ).

 

[Heretic]

That may be the case...but as yet CGI (or most robotics I've ever seen) don't truly look human. Despite all of Avatar's hype and accomplishments, I still dont think that anyone has truly mastered a CGI human looking like a convincing human. It'll be there soon though, for sure.

A better example would be those motion capture movies...like...Jim Carey was in one last year but I forget what the title was. It's not really a person, but is kind of a person...and I think that far more people are creeped out by that technique than there are that like it.

 

[Passdom]

That may be the case...but as yet CGI (or most robotics I've ever seen) don't truly look human. Despite all of Avatar's hype and accomplishments, I still dont think that anyone has truly mastered a CGI human looking like a convincing human. It'll be there soon though, for sure.

A better example would be those motion capture movies...like...Jim Carey was in one last year but I forget what the title was. It's not really a person, but is kind of a person...and I think that far more people are creeped out by that technique than there are that like it.

Some of the shots of Colonel Quaritch are 100% CG in Avatar. I still haven't figured out which ones

And the CG Jeff Bridges in the latest Tron Legacy trailer looked pretty convincing imo

 

[Electrofarce]

Some of the shots of Colonel Quaritch are 100% CG in Avatar. I still haven't figured out which ones

And the CG Jeff Bridges in the latest Tron Legacy trailer looked pretty convincing imo

I agree. But the shot's of Qualritch are too quick.

Young Jeff Bridges looks amazing though

 

[Heretic]

Some of the shots of Colonel Quaritch are 100% CG in Avatar. I still haven't figured out which ones

And the CG Jeff Bridges in the latest Tron Legacy trailer looked pretty convincing imo

My assumption is that the scenes of the Colonel in Avatar are ones where he is in the big robot thingy...and it looked REAL good...but it also had the advantage of moving and looking like a robot. Don't get me wrong...I may bash Avatar a lot, but I'm not going to foolishly claim that it doesnt have some groundbreaking CGI. It has certainly come a long way since the really bad shadow fight in Blade 2.

I believe that Jeff Bridges in real life is 75% CGI.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Not all the scenes with Quaritch in the AMP suit are CGI.

 

[Electrofarce]

My assumption is that the scenes of the Colonel in Avatar are ones where he is in the big robot thingy...and it looked REAL good...but it also had the advantage of moving and looking like a robot. Don't get me wrong...I may bash Avatar a lot, but I'm not going to foolishly claim that it doesnt have some groundbreaking CGI. It has certainly come a long way since the really bad shadow fight in Blade 2.

I believe that Jeff Bridges in real life is 75% CGI.

The Young Jeff Bridges in Legacy is 100% a digital character from head to toe. Bridges spoke in an interview of how he spent alot of time in "The Volume", where actors did mo-cap for Avatar

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

I think Heretic means the scenes where Kevin talk to his son in the real world, Jeff is de-aged by CGI.

 

[redhawk23]

With the exception of maybe 2 shots, I was fully conviced by cg brad pitt head in Benjamin Button. And then there are the parts where he is only slightly older like 50s ish and at the point in time I figured the switched to normal make up. When I found out those parts were cg too I was beyond amazed. I don't really like the movie overall ( too similar to forrest gump for my liking) but I have nothing but the utmost respect for the craftsmanship on display on that movie.

 

[Figs]

The Young Jeff Bridges in Legacy is 100% a digital character from head to toe. Bridges spoke in an interview of how he spent alot of time in "The Volume", where actors did mo-cap for Avatar

Wouldn't it have been better or easier to have just done his face and use the real Jeff Bridges to walk around?

 

[redhawk23]

Wouldn't it have been better or easier to have just done his face and use the real Jeff Bridges to walk around?

Body size, stature, bragging rights lol there are reasons.

 

[terry78]

Wouldn't it have been better or easier to have just done his face and use the real Jeff Bridges to walk around?

The real Jeff Bridges couldn't get as lean as he was back in the day when part one came out.

 

[redhawk23]

so how many of you guys are actually going to go see the rerelease? I think i actually might, I had always planned on seeing it a second time but money got tight.

 

[terry78]

I'm probably gonna go check it out, only because I didn't get a chance to see it in the theatre fully.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

so how many of you guys are actually going to go see the rerelease? I think i actually might, I had always planned on seeing it a second time but money got tight.

I will, I didn't saw it in 3D the first time ( "my" theater is now Real-D™ 3D / digital compliant ).