AVATAR

[ThePointingMan]

I did wonder how they were floating. My guess is it has something to do with the "unobtainium" ore they were trying to mine.

That tricky unobtainable unobtanium.

[Velocity]

I like the floating mountains! <3

in teh game you get to fly around them on a banshee :D

[Kursed]

That tricky unobtainable unobtanium.

look up the word unobtainable and you'll see why they chose that word

[Sabre]

@ the various people who don't get why I think the effects are crap. Go and watch The Thing, then go and watch avatar. It looks like who framed rodger rabbit, but no one in the film mentions that they are living in a cartoon.

District 9 overcomes it with a great story and fantastic action, something avatar doesn't. I will say that, after a while, it does become like a style, but to me, it's just jarring. Why not animate the whole thing if it's 99% cg? If they did that, you would lose the disconect everytime the weatherman a terrible greenscreen effect pops up.

Back on topic. In a film about blue hippies, glowing flowers, giant robots and light that acts differently on humans, floating mountains are fair game.

[Asper Sarnoff]

@ the various people who don't get why I think the effects are crap. Go and watch The Thing, then go and watch avatar. It looks like who framed rodger rabbit, but no one in the film mentions that they are living in a cartoon.

The Thing? As in that old horror movie about those guys in a research station on the south pole which get visited by... the thing?

I loved that film when I first saw it. The special effects were also so ahead of their time that it was unbelivable.

[Sabre]

That's the one. I'm talking about the colour one, not the black and white version or the book. The effects still hold up well. Most of them do anyway. There are a couple of times it looks a bit naff, but for the most part they look real. Part of this is because it was in a sence. It was all props, puppets, and practical effects so it didn't rip you out of the moment when the thing does something nasty.

Also, like district 9, it's a great film full of suspence, so you tend to ignore the few technical limitations that do appear because you are  engrosed.

[Vindr]

@ the various people who don't get why I think the effects are crap. Go and watch The Thing, then go and watch avatar. It looks like who framed rodger rabbit, but no one in the film mentions that they are living in a cartoon.

I'm assuming you mean The Thing, a 1982 movie by John Carpenter.

In which case, 5:15 on made me lol.

The special effects compared to a movie like five years ago or something, I dunno, I don't have the attention span to look it up right now.

Then there's Avatar to compare.

If you would observe, the special effects/computer models are oft jerky, block like, and stick out like Jack Bauer in a sitcom.  In fact, I'm sure you can find much better in a video game now-a-days than you might find from a couple years ago.  Hell, CoD6 on the PS3 I'm sure has better graphics or at least the same as Crysis.

District 9 overcomes it with a great story and fantastic action, something avatar doesn't. I will say that, after a while, it does become like a style, but to me, it's just jarring. Why not animate the whole thing if it's 99% cg? If they did that, you would lose the disconect everytime the weatherman a terrible greenscreen effect pops up.

The story is crap, I've seen the thing in lots of other movies/books/whatever.  I'm sure it had enough action to keep even Transformer fans in line too.  I think really, Avatar was not about story or anything else but to show off special effects powress.  But still, if that statement was true to it's full effect, we have a lot of kinks to work out, I would agree.  Other than that, it somewhat reminded me of what Land Before Time 3D might look like.

[Mr. Krystal]

No.

The Thing's special effects are minimal, obviously animatronic, and good for their day.

Episode II's special effects are slightly jerky, but otherwise photorealistic.

Avatar are indistinguishable from reality. I specifically saw places where other movies have failed, yet it succeeded. Since lighting photorealism is easy, the problem remains fixing animation photorealism. Avatar, and as far as I can tell, District 9 both have both photorealistic lighting AND animation. This is because the uncanny valley has been traversed, sometime around 2005.

[Vindr]

Exactly, just building/proving my case for Sabres argument, that's all.

[Guest FoXXX]

I don't like these kinds of movies, there are very few movies I like.

[Sabre]

Avatar are indistinguishable from reality.

You make a good point, but that made me laugh. To me, it's bloody obvious. Avatar is not the worst effect ever, far from it, but if we agree that the role of effects is to make you believe what you are seeing, then it fails misrably. Everybody looks like they are standing in front of green screens and there is a masive disconect whenever a real actor is on screen. Imagine starwars if Darth vader was played by a paper doll. That's what it's like.

Let me put it another way. People claim the effects are amazing, and technically they are, but as something to help tell a story they fail miserably. The CG is good, but CG still doesn't equal film quality. As posted before, starwars looks aweful now, but back then it was incredible, but I can see how awful this is even before it's aged. Had it all been animated, I would have no problem with it effects wise. The issue is the how obviously fake it is when the real actors walk on screen.

[Vindr]

Agreed, we do still have a lot of kinks to work out, as I said before.  And I hope that's not my accidental s**t grammar you're quoting...

[StarFoxIII]

Saw Avatar with my dad and my brother several hours ago today. I thought it was a pretty good film even though there were moments in the film I expected to happen moments ahead of time, like the missle blowing up the aircraft by getting caught inside the engine and the hero declaring his allegiance to the indeginous tribe after the paramilitary group which he was alligned with destroyed their home.

[Mr. Krystal]

You make a good point, but that made me laugh. To me, it's bloody obvious. Avatar is not the worst effect ever, far from it, but if we agree that the role of effects is to make you believe what you are seeing, then it fails misrably. Everybody looks like they are standing in front of green screens and there is a masive disconect whenever a real actor is on screen. Imagine starwars if Darth vader was played by a paper doll. That's what it's like.

Let me put it another way. People claim the effects are amazing, and technically they are, but as something to help tell a story they fail miserably. The CG is good, but CG still doesn't equal film quality. As posted before, starwars looks aweful now, but back then it was incredible, but I can see how awful this is even before it's aged. Had it all been animated, I would have no problem with it effects wise. The issue is the how obviously fake it is when the real actors walk on screen.

You are referring to the "uncanny valley" which basically says that the closer something gets (robots, animation, 3D graphics) to reality, the less real it looks, because the brain only sees the way the image is different from reality, rather than how similar it is. However, I'm a graphics guy, LOOKING for that stuff, and I couldn't see it. If you can, you are either just really really good at it, or your fooling yourself in to thinking it looks fake (because everyone knows that tall blue people with tails don't exist). I would challenge you to take one of those online quizzes where you have to figure out which image is photoshopped and which is real.

Remember only 60% of Avatar was CG, not 99%.

Saw Avatar with my dad and my brother several hours ago today. I thought it was a pretty good film even though there were moments in the film I expected to happen moments ahead of time, like the missle blowing up the aircraft by getting caught inside the engine and the hero declaring his allegiance to the indeginous tribe after the paramilitary group which he was alligned with destroyed their home.

Maybe because that scene was in the trailer?

[Showtime 1-1]

I hate spoiler-trailers. :(

[Kursed]

You make a good point, but that made me laugh. To me, it's bloody obvious. Avatar is not the worst effect ever, far from it, but if we agree that the role of effects is to make you believe what you are seeing, then it fails misrably. Everybody looks like they are standing in front of green screens and there is a masive disconect whenever a real actor is on screen. Imagine starwars if Darth vader was played by a paper doll. That's what it's like.

Let me put it another way. People claim the effects are amazing, and technically they are, but as something to help tell a story they fail miserably. The CG is good, but CG still doesn't equal film quality. As posted before, starwars looks aweful now, but back then it was incredible, but I can see how awful this is even before it's aged. Had it all been animated, I would have no problem with it effects wise. The issue is the how obviously fake it is when the real actors walk on screen.

well If you disliek Cg so much sabre I think you shouldn't whach Starwars,Startrek or any major Cg stuff your...complaint is rather irrelivant did you see the 2d version?

[ThePointingMan]

look up the word unobtainable and you'll see why they chose that word

I already knew what unobtainable means... Which is why I said

That tricky unobtainable unobtanium.

Unless that's a quote from the movie, in which case i did not know it was.

Now then, the man who has not watched the movie, shall give his opinion:

Needs more motion capture motion captures great.

Now seeing as how I have not watched it, I was wandering if I "should" go watch it, I enjoyed district nine a lot, but other then that, I'd rather be playin' video games then watching a movie, so it has ta be a great movie if I'm gonna watch it, so I want some opinions, is it badradical or Okay, or lame.

Also I could really care less if it, "looks good," I want it to BE GOOD.

[StarFoxIII]

Maybe because that scene was in the trailer?

I forgot most of the trailer's scenes, but I remember that it had a lot of action and explosions. My expectations were like "I know this'll happen by the looks of this" more than "Hey, I've seen this scene before. I know what'll happen!".

[Sabre]

You are referring to the "uncanny valley" which basically says that the closer something gets (robots, animation, 3D graphics) to reality, the less real it looks, because the brain only sees the way the image is different from reality, rather than how similar it is. However, I'm a graphics guy, LOOKING for that stuff, and I couldn't see it. If you can, you are either just really really good at it, or your fooling yourself in to thinking it looks fake (because everyone knows that tall blue people with tails don't exist). I would challenge you to take one of those online quizzes where you have to figure out which image is photoshopped and which is real.

I believe the uncanny vally is a myth. I've seen some great waxworks that looked real. I'm an animation guy, but it wasn't the animation that threw me. I believe that you couldn't see the woods for the trees, or were looking into the matrix and ignoring the disconnect, that or you simple couldn't see it? I'm not sure what photoshop has to do with it. I remember a while ago a new shader came out with a 3D render of a building next to a photo of it, and I couldn't tell the difference.

Remember only 60% of Avatar was CG, not 99%.

Almost all the backgrounds, long stretches of cg only scenes. True 99% is a bit overstating it, but I think 60% is understating it somewhat. That is if were counting frames with cg.

I hate spoiler-trailers.

That's why district 9 and stargate had great marketing. They only showed the set up, no plot was given.

[Vindr]

I would agree with Sabre somewhat after thinking about it a few days, why not do the whole thing in CGI like Beowulf and Polar Express was done in.

Someone mind giving me a nutshell on the uncanny valley?  I'm pretty much lost here and it's impossible to write up a five paragraph reply here to sound smart without knowing what the hell you guys are talking about.

[Sabre]

The uncanny vally is on wikipedia if you want the details, but be sure to read the critasism section.

The idea is that the more realistic and human something looks, the more repulsive and fake it becomes. Reasons for this vary, but I'm of the opinion that it's just most 'realistic' robots, toys ect are just ugly.

A perfect example is the Oblivion and Fallout games. People so realistic that they fall in the uncanny valley. I think it's because they are all stiff as a board and only have 4 exprestions.

[Mr. Krystal]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have seen the uncanny valley operate in many circumstances, particularly in the area of facial rendering. The number 60% CG is from the director himself, not my estimates. And Photoshop has to do with it because if you can't tell the difference between something shopped and something real, then the potential for CG ugliness has been surpassed (beyond human ability to detect). To me, it sounds like you're complaining because movies run at 12.5 Htz, when everyone knows that reality is continuous. I argue that since 12.5 and beyond (usually up to 60 Htz) are beyond most human's ability to detect the disconnect, it no longer matters. If you don't believe in the uncanny valley, I can only conclude that you simply find Avatar's modeling and animation ugly, which is an area of preference, not debate.

[Sabre]

??? This always was preference. I hate the effects, other people like them. I think they look awful and jarring, you don't. Well whatever.

[Asper Sarnoff]

Just watched it today, and I must say I liked it rather a lot. I'd say on a scale from 1-10, around 9.

The only things that that worked against it for me was just details. Such as the underlying propagandic morale that all we humans are evil and nature will one day strike back at us, some tads of bad acting, to 2-dimentional villains, and even if I had no desire to see something which was realistic and possible in every single way, I found some of the creature designs, such as the those salamander-choppers, somewhat stupid.

The special effects where quite impressive. No sharp-eyed viewer will ever be tricked into thinking some of the less obvious CG is real, and there was some strange reflection on metal I spotted in the start of the film. But overall, not much of a dissapointment here.

[Kursed]

Just watched it today, and I must say I liked it rather a lot. I'd say on a scale from 1-10, around 9.

The only things that that worked against it for me was just details. Such as the underlying propagandic morale that all we humans are evil and nature will one day strike back at us, some tads of bad acting, to 2-dimentional villains, and even if I had no desire to see something which was realistic and possible in every single way, I found some of the creature designs, such as the those salamander-choppers, somewhat stupid.

The special effects where quite impressive. No sharp-eyed viewer will ever be tricked into thinking some of the less obvious CG is real, and there was some strange reflection on metal I spotted in the start of the film. But overall, not much of a dissapointment here.

I like in the beginign where  they first land you see the big truck with the spears stuck to the wheels of it. That was cool.