James Cameron's Sequel to "AVATAR"

[xmangambit]

They should bring back Lang!

Not the character we know, they should bring his name back a.k.a Lang's Son!

A.k.a

Michael Biehn! He would make a sick Villain avenging his dad in this, and hlaf way through he should violate the Avatar procedure and become a Na'vi, making for some civil war thing, turning some of the Na'vi against their own!

Holy crap I should write this film I would love to see that!

 

[Still Wynning]

They should bring back Lang!

Not the character we know, they should bring his name back a.k.a Lang's Son!

A.k.a

Michael Biehn! He would make a sick Villain avenging his dad in this, and hlaf way through he should violate the Avatar procedure and become a Na'vi, making for some civil war thing, turning some of the Na'vi against their own!

Holy crap I should write this film I would love to see that!

Bringing Michael Biehn as the son the of the previous film's villain would be an awesome idea!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Just Michael Biehn being in the movie period would be great, throw in Bill Paxton as well!

 

[Kent]

^ Michael Biehn in no way would pass as Stephen Lang's son, unless this is set a long time after the first movie.

 

[dark_b]

it would be great if Biehn and Paxton are in the movie.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^It certainly would, I dont think Biehn could pass for Quaritch's son, but he could certainly pass for his younger brother.

 

[xmangambit]

^ Yea ok Brother seems more plausible, good call monami. Still Biehn would be an awesome villain even if he's not tied with the Lang character in anyway, right?!

 

[Iceman]

Biehn & Paxton would be cool whatever they get to do. Both legends!

 

[zanos]

While Cameron is at it, he might as well give Jeanette Goldstein a call and Lance Henriksen too.

 

[LuvSupes]

He made it! He's currently at the bottom of the Mariana Trench!

 

[SpitCurl]

He made it! He's currently at the bottom of the Mariana Trench!

Nice. Say what you want to about Cameron as a film-maker, that guy is just amaze-balls t:

 

[dude stannis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/james-cameron-mariana-trench-dive_n_1378507.html

The first and only time anyone dove to these depths was in 1960. Swiss engineer Jacques Piccard and U.S. Navy Capt. Don Walsh took nearly five hours to reach the bottom and stayed just 20 minutes. They didn't have much to report on what they saw there, however, because their submarine kicked up so much sand from the ocean floor they couldn't see much.

No doubt, it's Jean-Luc's ancestor

 

[CGHulk]

So I watched TinTin today and you can easily notice the imperfections in the technology, like cg skin looking like it's a hard surface, like on hands, and thumb nails aren't even shiny. Cotton clothing looks fake too. These things were prevalent in Avatar as Tintin was a jumping off technologically where Avatar left off. I hope these things will be improved upon in Avatar 2.

 

[Blue Sugar]

the mo-cap and cgi in Avatar beats the crap out of Tintin when it comes to photo-realism. But then again I don't think that's what Tintin aimed at.

 

[Rocketman]

Like I've said a billion times, if they can't make this stuff look good, then STOP doing it. Just save your $300 million and paint the actors blue and give them Stan Winston-style make-up. Who gives a ****? CGI is such circular idiocy. They pump hundreds of millions of dollars into making fake characters look more and more real, when they could've just hired a human being.

It's like me buying 10 billion toothpicks so I can make a car out of wood, but I spent $100 million on the toothpicks, when I could've just spent $10,000 on an actual car that looks like a car (because it is a goddamn car).

I think the CGI in Avatar looked like crap. It was hardly an improvement over Beowulf, or The Polar Express, or A Christmas Carol, or Final Fantasy, and now Tintin is another example. It's just pointless crap. Hollywood needs to start making films again, and not cartoons. I want some motion pictures. I want to see some photography. Not this XBOX stuff.

I tell you, after years of being pumped for Avatar, nothing was more heartbreaking and disappointing than finally seeing the first trailer, and seeing how underwhelming the CGI was when Jake was on the hospital bed. It was just downright "Meh" after expecting something groundbreaking.

 

[Kane52630]

^*sigh*
*shakes head*

 

[Blue Sugar]

I thought the CGI in Avatar was absolutely amazing and at times totally photo-realistic. Then again I loved the whole movie and was totally immersed by it.

Overall I think motion-capture CGI is a great thing when done well. Love it in Rise of the Planet of the Apes and in Return of the King for example.

It can do things practical stuff never could imo. It just needs to be used more in the right way at the right times. That counts for all CGI for that matter.

I don't and will never understand people who treat CGI as the devil.

 

[Schlosser85]

Like I've said a billion times, if they can't make this stuff look good, then STOP doing it. Just save your $300 million and paint the actors blue and give them Stan Winston-style make-up. Who gives a ****? CGI is such circular idiocy. They pump hundreds of millions of dollars into making fake characters look more and more real, when they could've just hired a human being.

It's like me buying 10 billion toothpicks so I can make a car out of wood, but I spent $100 million on the toothpicks, when I could've just spent $10,000 on an actual car that looks like a car (because it is a goddamn car).

I think the CGI in Avatar looked like crap. It was hardly an improvement over Beowulf, or The Polar Express, or A Christmas Carol, or Final Fantasy, and now Tintin is another example. It's just pointless crap. Hollywood needs to start making films again, and not cartoons. I want some motion pictures. I want to see some photography. Not this XBOX stuff.

I tell you, after years of being pumped for Avatar, nothing was more heartbreaking and disappointing than finally seeing the first trailer, and seeing how underwhelming the CGI was when Jake was on the hospital bed. It was just downright "Meh" after expecting something groundbreaking.

You can do things with CGI you can't do with blue-painted actors in makeup.

There are times when I think practical effects work better than CGI. In the Alien movies, for example. The alien in 1979 played by a guy in a suit looks a lot more convincing than in 1991 when it's CGI half the time.

But you can't make actors look like Na'vi, no matter how much makeup they're wearing.

And in my opinion Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, and the Na'vi in Avatar are as believable characters as anyone else.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah cgi looks like cgi, but rubber looks like rubber. You can argue aesthetic preference on the matter but there was plenty of fake looking crap before CGI became prevalent.

That's not to say I don't like practical effects, because they can be used beautifully by those who have the skills to make and shoot them, but so can cgi.

Its just a matter of skill.

IMHO this

is far better than this

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think with the cgi in avatar was that yes in stills it looked amazing or even when it was just na'vi among na'vi, but when you had the interactions between the live actors and the na'vi you could notice the discrepancies and how the cgi was still not convincing enough for you to believe there was actual interaction going on.

 

[redhawk23]

You can do things with CGI you can't do with blue-painted actors in makeup.

There are times when I think practical effects work better than CGI. In the Alien movies, for example. The alien in 1979 played by a guy in a suit looks a lot more convincing than in 1991 when it's CGI half the time.

But you can't make actors look like Na'vi, no matter how much makeup they're wearing.

And in my opinion Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, and the Na'vi in Avatar are as believable characters as anyone else.

Would that necessarily if Alien 3 had been made 2how0 years later? Also, there's a degree to which the design in alien3 was simply inferior, IMHO, regardless of how that design was implemented.

 

[Lord]

The cgi was exelent in Avatar, i didn't see any discrepancy between the live action actors and the characters, the CGI was very, very good, i only notice it was CGI when i see some still photos

 

[redhawk23]

I think with the cgi in avatar was that yes in stills it looked amazing or even when it was just na'vi among na'vi, but when you had the interactions between the live action and the na'vi you could notice the discrepancies and how the cgi was still not convincing enough for you to believe there was actual interaction going on.

I actually disagree. It was the scenes with multiple naivi or with absolutely no physical elements that looked the worst.

This shot was in every single trailer and I cringe everytime I come across it.

This shot on the other hand, looks completley convincing, especially the feet, the skin there looks exactly what blue skin would have to look like. It's amazing. I think what helps this shot is how unglamourous the lighting is.

The problem with many of the effects shots in avatar is that the na'vi are just too damn clean, too smooth. While the skin looks real, it looks like dolphin skin or something and it just doesn't jive with living in a jungle.

The na'vi and such look awesome however with just a bit of dirt or paint smeared on.


So much better, one of my favorite shots of past decade, which is saying a lot considering overall I'm not that big of a fan of the film. I do however belive in giving credit where credit is due.

I mean look at him here, he looks like a physically existing being, not a person painted blue, but rather a blue person, who incidently has other paint on him. What I like about this shot is how they finally just went all the way with the style of his dress and hair style, it's weird and different but suits this so well. Add in the fact that this is an absurdly skinny 9 foot tall cat person riding on a dragon, and the ideea of simply butting a member of the blue man group in front a greenscreen and calling it a day seems absurd.

 

[redhawk23]

Does anyone really think that instead of this

we would have been better off with this

 

[matrix_ghost]

Does anyone really think that instead of this

we would have been better off with this

Although i'm in the camp of doing stuff with CGI , it still boils down to believability.
WIth some movies the CGI becomes so clear that a fake looking shot immediatly takes you out of the realm.
Ditto with make up.However if you are fully immerses into a flick , it really doesnt bother you.
I mean look at Hellboy 2 or Pan's Labyrinth. A majority of the characters are brought to life with make up yet you honestly dont hear stuff like "OMG characters look so fake worse movie EVAH ".