James Cameron's Sequel to "AVATAR"

[redhawk23]

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 ".

del Toro's films are interesting in that way. He makes great use of practical effects but also makes good use cgi even given the medium to small budgest available to him, especially mixing the two with Samael the hell hound in the first Hellboy.

Hellboy 2 in one film features Hellboy himself, Abe, and many others

Spoiler

but also the stone giant and the Golden Army

Spoiler

both
type of technology can and should be used effectively according to the needs of the shot.

I just don't understand anti-cgi puritism, as if there were never any terrible practical effects

 

[dark_b]

it all depends on the movie and story. Del toro's movies used a lot of practical effects. thsi will change in his last movie where they will have to use 100% CGI shots.

 

[redhawk23]

How is it that David Fincher is attached to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea instead of James Cameron? Honestly.

 

[dark_b]

How is it that David Fincher is attached to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea instead of James Cameron? Honestly.

Fincher likes to make movies from books. Cameron likes to use them as inspiration( some call it stealing ) .

Cameron will do the ultimate underwater movie with Avatar 2. i dnot like this. but this is what will happen.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

del Toro's films are interesting in that way. He makes great use of practical effects but also makes good use cgi even given the medium to small budgest available to him, especially mixing the two with Samael the hell hound in the first Hellboy.

Hellboy 2 in one film features Hellboy himself, Abe, and many others

Spoiler

but also the stone giant and the Golden Army

Spoiler

both
type of technology can and should be used effectively according to the needs of the shot.

I just don't understand anti-cgi puritism, as if there were never any terrible practical effects

I prefer a blend of both. A lot of times it just looks better to see something that is really there. However sometimes CGI is the best method of rendering something.
I don't like it when CG is the easiest, and quickest. A lot of times CGI, especially hastily done CGI makes things look to clumsy or lite. Look at the autobots. They look almost weightless, rather than like they should, you know multi-ton robots.

 

[The Morningstar]

The only time CGI really bothers me is when film makers use it to create sets and environments. Granted, sometimes it's impossible to do the more outlandish environments. But it's mostly just pure laziness. And it effects quality too. How can an actor be fully immersed into their role and the universe if they are standing in a room with nothing there but a green screen? I think it's a big part of why the Star Wars prequels had such terrible, wooden acting. Because the characters had to focus so much on imagining things that weren't there, their performance was effected.

Ridley Scott is the master of blending CGI and practical effects I think. Just look at what he did with Kingdom of Heaven. Utterly insane visuals and how he made modern day Jerusalem look like Crusade era Jerusalem.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Creating whole sets with CGI can be a problem I agree but shooting on location or real sets and touching up with CGI when it comes to backgrounds and stuff is great. It's no more different than using matte-paintings really.

 

[Figs]

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.

You don't have the eye to properly judge CGI if you think it was hardly an improvement over those movies you listed.

Also, it's laughable that you say Hollywood needs to start making films again and not cartoons. Um, yeah, because 95-99% of all films are live action, damn all those cartoon movies being pumped out every year.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The thing with CGI, it isn't all the scenes that nail it that most remember. It is the ugly bits, the one that remind you that what you are seeing isn't real that catches the eye.

 

[Iceman]

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.

Those films you mention are full CGI films. In Avatar you see the human actors unaltered interacting with CGI creations and backgrounds so it's a different level of technology. Also visually, partly it's to do with the quality of the blu-ray transfer but frame by frame the CGI quality is so much higher (I've watched them all up close on a hi-def 15ft projector apart from Tin Tin).

That aside I mean it looks how it looks to you so you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Just many people believe it's the highest level of CGI and 3D we've seen in film so far (regardless of opinions on the film's quality).

 

[dark_b]

i like that he says ''we did it. we all did it ''. no ego that day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8Akn_Vhuk

 

[dark_b]

The only time CGI really bothers me is when film makers use it to create sets and environments. Granted, sometimes it's impossible to do the more outlandish environments. But it's mostly just pure laziness. And it effects quality too. How can an actor be fully immersed into their role and the universe if they are standing in a room with nothing there but a green screen?
.

this is not true IMO. how can an actor be fully immersed if there are 20 people standing next to him behind the camera ? and all the bright lights shining on his face?

i am not an actor. its very different watching and acting on those sets. plus they are actors. its their job to be able to act on all locations. so i disagree that its a problem.

 

[The Morningstar]

No i think it is. Being on location or on a fully constructed set is surely more beneficial for an actor.

Think back to films like The Thing or Alien. Would the looks of pure shock and terror in the actors eyes have been as believable if they weren't looking at a fully realised animatronic that sprays blood everywhere, but just some tennis ball in front of a green screen?

I watched the making of Alien recently, and what Scott and co did with the chest burster scene was genius. None of the actors knew exactly what was going to happen, or what the creature looked like. Then when it happened, they were all genuinely shocked at what was happening. You can't do that with green screen or cgi, you can't get those types of real emotional responses.

It's the same with sets. Like say it's a fully constructed cock pit set. I think it'd be easy to get into the role of a pilot if it's all there and real, rather than just a big green room.

 

[roach]

The only time CGI really bothers me is when film makers use it to create sets and environments. Granted, sometimes it's impossible to do the more outlandish environments. But it's mostly just pure laziness. And it effects quality too. How can an actor be fully immersed into their role and the universe if they are standing in a room with nothing there but a green screen? I think it's a big part of why the Star Wars prequels had such terrible, wooden acting. Because the characters had to focus so much on imagining things that weren't there, their performance was effected.

Ridley Scott is the master of blending CGI and practical effects I think. Just look at what he did with Kingdom of Heaven. Utterly insane visuals and how he made modern day Jerusalem look like Crusade era Jerusalem.

its an actors job to be fully immersed in a role regardless if they are on a green screen or a real set

 

[roach]

No i think it is. Being on location or on a fully constructed set is surely more beneficial for an actor.

Think back to films like The Thing or Alien. Would the looks of pure shock and terror in the actors eyes have been as believable if they weren't looking at a fully realised animatronic that sprays blood everywhere, but just some tennis ball in front of a green screen?

I watched the making of Alien recently, and what Scott and co did with the chest burster scene was genius. None of the actors knew exactly what was going to happen, or what the creature looked like. Then when it happened, they were all genuinely shocked at what was happening. You can't do that with green screen or cgi, you can't get those types of real emotional responses.

It's the same with sets. Like say it's a fully constructed cock pit set. I think it'd be easy to get into the role of a pilot if it's all there and real, rather than just a big green room.

if an actor is good he is already immersed in the role before he gets on set

 

[The Morningstar]

It's not just about being immersed, it's about reacting to things. Reaction to something that isn't there will never, ever get the same reaction to something that is actually right there, and say, horrifying, no matter how good the actor/actress is. The reaction of shock and horror from the actors in Alien at the chest burster scene was REAL shock and horror. It wasn't acting. If that was just CGI'd in later, and the actors were faking it, it wouldn't have been as good.

You can't beat real life sets, environments and practical creatures/props etc. Not only to help the actors give believable performances, but because it just looks better. A brilliantly constructed set that is real and tangible is infinitely better than a green screen set, which no matter how good the cgi is, will always lack depth and tangibility.

 

[Kane52630]

I always feel the best way is to blend both CG and practical effects to achieve a great film on a technical standpoint..BUT I feel like Cameron is the exception to the rule of too much CGI is bad for a film. Cameron is a technical genius and his way pretty much always works.

 

[Iceman]

if an actor is good he is already immersed in the role before he gets on set

True, but even a great actor can act even better when given superior immersion tools.

 

[The Morningstar]

I agree, Cameron is one of those guys that just pushes boundaries with technology and it works.

But for the most part, I do truly detest completely CGI sets and backgrounds. They looked so fake in Green Lantern, Captain America and the SW prequels. They might have been beautifully designed and rendered etc. But you can just tell it's flat, it has no depth, it's not really there.

A recent good example of them being blended i think is Thor with Asgard. The throne room was a real set. But they used CGI to make it seem like this giant opera house thing.

 

[roach]

It's not just about being immersed, it's about reacting to things. Reaction to something that isn't there will never, ever get the same reaction to something that is actually right there, and say, horrifying, no matter how good the actor/actress is. The reaction of shock and horror from the actors in Alien at the chest burster scene was REAL shock and horror. It wasn't acting. If that was just CGI'd in later, and the actors were faking it, it wouldn't have been as good.

if they cg'd the chest burster they still could have had something on set to scare the actors and give them the same reaction...its all about the director and the actors....

You can't beat real life sets, environments and practical creatures/props etc. Not only to help the actors give believable performances, but because it just looks better. A brilliantly constructed set that is real and tangible is infinitely better than a green screen set, which no matter how good the cgi is, will always lack depth and tangibility.

I think of actors like Johnny Depp , who totally immerse themselves in the role after he has signed the paperwork...

 

[dark_b]

No i think it is. Being on location or on a fully constructed set is surely more beneficial for an actor.

Think back to films like The Thing or Alien. Would the looks of pure shock and terror in the actors eyes have been as believable if they weren't looking at a fully realised animatronic that sprays blood everywhere, but just some tennis ball in front of a green screen?

I watched the making of Alien recently, and what Scott and co did with the chest burster scene was genius. None of the actors knew exactly what was going to happen, or what the creature looked like. Then when it happened, they were all genuinely shocked at what was happening. You can't do that with green screen or cgi, you can't get those types of real emotional responses.

It's the same with sets. Like say it's a fully constructed cock pit set. I think it'd be easy to get into the role of a pilot if it's all there and real, rather than just a big green room.

think about it. the best acting is almost always a close up.

you think when a character is shocked in a close up ,that there is an alien(actor) behind the camera? he is acting and reacting into empty space. there is nothing infront of him.

but just to make it clear. i dont think that everything needs to be greenscreen .and sets from Alien and the Thing would still be sets today. its true. think about it when they use greenscreen. almsot always for big locations that couldnt be build. and Lucas and the prequels dont count because he is the only director who used greenscreen for interiors.

 

[dark_b]

I always feel the best way is to blend both CG and practical effects to achieve a great film on a technical standpoint..BUT I feel like Cameron is the exception to the rule of too much CGI is bad for a film. Cameron is a technical genius and his way pretty much always works.

but in avatar they always used sets for the actors. for example the soldiers didnt walk through an empty greenscreen room when in forest. tehy build the ground,small plants around them and some trees.
when two soldiers look at Jake they were standing on real cement ground. they only used greenscreen behind them becuase everythign was BIG and couldnt be build.

 

[Airwings]

I can get go of the thought of Ridley Scott doing Avatar 2. How would it have been?

He started a really big sci fi concept in Alien, and James Cameron took over. Now that Scott didn't do any Terminator, he has another shoot here.

Not that Cameron would ever let him take over, but still...

 

[Blue Sugar]

Can't believe how far away Avatar 2 seems to be.

Here is one of my favorite shots in Avatar just because.

 

[dark_b]

something interesting from Devin Faraci. he hates Avatar as much as a human can hate .
http://badassdigest.com/2012/03/26/up-for-discussion-james-camerons-historic-dive/

its a big problem with Devin Faraci. because its an example that when he hates something he will ignore all logic.