I dunno, I was expecting something a bit deeper and classier rather than an obvious CG fest.
So was I, and to be honest after rewatching the trailer a few times I have to say that in addition to being hamfisted, I've got a bad feeling the movie will be sappy too. You know, in between the explosions.
And why the hell did the trailer say, "From the director of Titanic" and not "From the director of Aliens, The Abyss and Terminator 1 and 2"?? As if any sci-fi fan would give a shit about Titanic.
Trying not to get too sappy with this. Terminator 2 was one of the most incredible movies i ever saw (the first R rated movie i ever got to watch, and in the theater!)
Watched the trailer, and i can't help but think it's trying to do what district 9 did, but without passion (create empathy for digital characters (avatars)).
District 9 showed us that money didn't matter. Avatar i think will do the same.
i think this movie looks awesome! I just like anything sci-fi! Not groundbreaking in anyway but you know it will be entertaining. I'll go see it just because it's a decent looking sci-fi flick.
I heard James Cameron wanted Chuck Norris to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I heard James Cameron wanted Chuck Norris to play the Terminator. However, upon reflection, he realized that would have turned his movie into a documentary, so he went with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Wasn't too excited by the trailer looks more along the lines of transformers or the new starwars films than anything. Maybe all its trying to be is just a huge cg action fest, which is fine I was just expecting a little more depth due some of the hype its getting. Probably a bit too early to tell, I'll try to reserve judgment until it comes out.
Just got back from the preview....Best CG ever ...hands down... ....if you decide not to see this movie..you'll be missing out ...Got a Dances with Wolves vibe from it. Sigourney Weaver in her Avatar looked Flawless.
I really dont get why they didnt go for a more contrasty, flickering strong shadows kind of style - like in Alien and Aliens. That would look so cool it relief, as a matter of fact THIS gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.
Also about the water tank shot. Jar Jar is exactly how I feel too. Now swap that blue alien dude with a real actor who knows how to move with proper body language, in a Abe Sapien costume, and bam the shot becomes awesome.
The trailer shows most of the stuff I don't like about recent 'easy' CGI scifi, that's a bit sad.
Also I don't like how they force the '3Dness' of establishing shots by giving them crazy paralax. Like in the tree forest shot. I like how regular CG matte paintings usually use very subtle cam movements to just suggest that the shot is alive. Here it's like WOOOOSH THREEDEE (even on the 2d trailer...)
these kind of comparos are a bit lame though.. most of those shots could be in a handfull of movies.
also have to remember that in a general design sense that it isn't uncommon for things with a similar design sense to start channeling things that look 'right' for that look.
I didn't bother going to the preview after the disappointment of the trailer. Some who watched it come back saying "oh it was so much better in 3d", but most agree that it still looks cartoony and nowhere near "realism" - what do you think of that?
again it was the best cg I've seen...even without the 3d. I could have done without the 3d actually....the scenes they showed were breathtaking.
Just saw the preview.. I gotta say im really not feeling the character design of the blue people, but damn... animations and facial expressions looked amazing. those action sequences were so fucking intense. Everything about it rocked except the fucking blue people...
I really dont get why they didnt go for a more contrasty, flickering strong shadows kind of style - like in Alien and Aliens.
1. Wouldn't work well enough with the polarized glasses, as there's a huge loss of brightness through the process. Colors are also muted considerably when you have the glasses on.
2. You're supposed to fall in love with the alien planet, kinda opposing the audience reaction that the Alien movies aim for.
But wait until you see Earth in the movie...
Also about the water tank shot. Jar Jar is exactly how I feel too. Now swap that blue alien dude with a real actor who knows how to move with proper body language, in a Abe Sapien costume, and bam the shot becomes awesome.
The acting is perfect in the 15 minute segment. It's almost creepy when you see a somewhat blueish, young Ellen Ripley, for example.
The trailer shows most of the stuff I don't like about recent 'easy' CGI scifi, that's a bit sad.
Realize that because of the 3D there's absolutely no room for cheats here. No sprites, no 2D smoke, no 2D matte paintings, nothing. Everything is built in 3D.
Wouldn't call that easy.
Also I don't like how they force the '3Dness' of establishing shots by giving them crazy paralax. Like in the tree forest shot. I like how regular CG matte paintings usually use very subtle cam movements to just suggest that the shot is alive. Here it's like WOOOOSH THREEDEE (even on the 2d trailer...)
It feels amazing in the theatre, at least to me.
Oh and wait until there's flying...
he had better not fuck it up like they ruined Starship Troopers.
The only trouble is that Verhoeven's movie is a satire of the book, hence it makes fun of the pathos and the ideas from Heinlein's original. You know, some consider ST facist, with the citizenship issues and war-driven society and all... that's why the movie borrows a lot of nazi imagery and such in the PR segments.
It is a very good movie IMHO, but not an adaptation of the book, that's all. Just like Robocop, also far more then a cheesy SF-action movie So if someone expected real heroics and stuff then it is a disappointment, but try to look beyond that.
The only trouble is that Verhoeven's movie is a satire of the book, hence it makes fun of the pathos and the ideas from Heinlein's original. You know, some consider ST facist, with the citizenship issues and war-driven society and all... that's why the movie borrows a lot of nazi imagery and such in the PR segments.
I know, but as far as I'm concerned Starship Troopers is three things: Power armor, bugs and fascism, and Verhoeven left out the coolest of the three.
After seeing Coraline in 3d I just don't see the point of it. Never seems to help immersion only remove me from the movie and realize I'm sitting in a chair having something stupid pop out at me.
Trying..... to ..... not..... hate.
Also what happens when it comes out on dvd/bluray? Pretty much screwed on the 3d front? Or hows that work?
Looks pretty great to me. I see a lot of potential there, and I'm optimistic Jim can capitalize on most of it. Sure, maybe it'll end up being another Phantom Menace, but I don't see any good reason to believe so yet. Some of you guys are pretty jaded bastards. :P
I heard that Avatar is only going to be shown in one single theater in every city. The combined awesomeness of showing avatar in two places simultaneously would destroy everything in a 50 mile radius.
After seeing Coraline in 3d I just don't see the point of it. Never seems to help immersion only remove me from the movie and realize I'm sitting in a chair having something stupid pop out at me.
Trying..... to ..... not..... hate.
Also what happens when it comes out on dvd/bluray? Pretty much screwed on the 3d front? Or hows that work?
first of all, coraline was super cool in 3d for me. In a big enough theater to cover your peripheral vision, 3d works amazing. Materials and textures really come to life as well.
As for dvd/blur ray, the movie is converted for red-blue glasses. Pretty much lame old 3d.
I dont know if its been said but in the movie trailer, the mechs gun is clipping through the arm.
(when the guy in the wheelchair is comming out from the ship the mech is on the left)
I know, but as far as I'm concerned Starship Troopers is three things: Power armor, bugs and fascism, and Verhoeven left out the coolest of the three.
Definitely a movie that needs a remake.
Totally agree. I can appreciate the satire, but I wasn't looking at starship troopers book as political commentary, just scifi fantasy, so I didn't really have an opinion on fascism,military rule, or human rights; it was just a cool semi-distopian future.
Problem is the satire has spawned an entire franchise for itself so hard to get a budget and liscense to make the other.
It coud be part of the design although even so its still a bad design. The weapon does not sit well. I think they missed a trick with the mechs there was no need to have them with open cockpits, in reality they wouldnt have them, and its just extra effort for the renders with little payoff if the blokes are just going to be cgi(also the ammo obscures view).
I think Cameron is making a terrible mistake using so much Cg in the movie because nothing can beat a real good actors's expresions and corporal movement. I prefer 1000 times an actor wearing a Chewbacca's or C3PO's suit ( or the Star Trek's green girl or Hellboy ) than a emotionless(or bad-acting) computer generated character.
Of course a Cg character can express emotions... but the question is... better than a good actor? I don't think so. I could understand the need of Cg for extreme or impossible scenes where you cannot use a stunt or a robot... the problem is that the current paradigm is to abuse the Cg automatically for all the scenes: Do you want an explosion? Ok let's do it with Cg. Do you want a strange character? Ok, make it using Cg. Do you want bullet's hit? Ok, let's make it with Cg. Arnold said that he won't appear in Salvation... now what? Ok, let's grab T1-T2 images and build a Cg character for T4... Cg is not always the solution for all!
About the trailer: I liked the real scenes. I disliked almost all the Cg ones, specially the blue characters and the tonemapping applied in some parts of the compositions.
About the 3D preview: innovative technique but I fear some image stability making you a bit dizzy and unconfortable. For the 15 mins was near ok but I'm afraid for the 3 hours movie this gonna be a problem.
Some cruel critics(always funny) I've read in some newspapers:
"A 90% of the budget went for Cg. The history told us that, when this happens, the script, actors and the history might be weak".
"I've been a theatre director for many years and I found almost all the new Hollywood's films Cged character's interpretations simply absurd. I cannot image the final Blade Runner's scene done by Gollum or Jar-jar Binks."
"Smurfar"
"Graphically speaking: a mix between Matrix revolutions, Star Wars episode 1 and Crysis".
"The 3D effect is very good.... if you want to vomit or you need a nice headache's excuse for not making the love. 3D glasses are very good also.... if you want to irritate your nose and ears"
"Jar Jar Binks in blue with BIG eyes multiplied by 1000"
"These new films are made in this way: Sam, look at the chroma three-headed monster on your back - Sam looks - Director says: no no no, stop! Not in that way, Sam! I told you a three headed monster not like a TWO headed!"
I won't listen the critics though... beautiful or not I'll go to watch in 3D just to see the effect, but I have a bad feeling about the movie itself...
Jog, yup I agree totally about acting quality. However it seems like some parts of the audience just cannot tell good acting from bad acting - in that case, I guess CG goes unnoticed!!
As for "real" scenes .... I thought *all* of them were computer generated? Or maybe I didn't get it right.
I think Cameron is making a terrible mistake using so much Cg in the movie because nothing can beat a real good actors's expresions and corporal movement. I prefer 1000 times an actor wearing a Chewbacca's or C3PO's suit ( or the Star Trek's green girl or Hellboy ) than a emotionless(or bad-acting) computer generated character.
On the other hand, Avatar's aliens do know about good acting, and you can certainly not replicate anything even near their expressive range with silicone masks or even just makeup. And Chewbacca is not a lead actor in SW, doesn't really get to do much...
On the other hand, Avatar's aliens do know about good acting, and you can certainly not replicate anything even near their expressive range with silicone masks or even just makeup.
Well, I agree. Silicon masks limit a bit the mobility loosing capability to express gestures.
The question is... the Nav'is aren't very complex and they're humanoid really. Why not to get a woman, put her some strange contact lens and a blue makeup and voil
Scoped this on wikipedia and found it interesting (also relevant to the CG character / motion capture discussion):
In December 2006, Cameron explained that the delay in producing the film since the 1990s had been to wait until the technology necessary to create his project was advanced enough. The director planned to create photo-realistic computer-generated characters by using motion capture animation technology, on which he had been doing work for the past 14 months. Unlike previous performance capture systems, where the digital environment is added after the actors' motions have been captured, Cameron's new virtual camera allows him to observe directly on a monitor how the actors' virtual counterparts interact with the movie's digital world in real time and adjust and direct the scenes just as if shooting live action; "Its like a big, powerful game engine. If I want to fly through space, or change my perspective, I can. I can turn the whole scene into a living miniature and go through it on a 50 to 1 scale." Cameron planned to continue developing the special effects for Avatar, which he hoped would be released in summer 2009.
Other technological innovations include a performance-capture stage, called The Volume, which is six times larger than previously used and an improved method of capturing facial expressions. The tool is a small individually made skull cap with a tiny camera attached to it, located in front of the actors' face which collects information about their facial expressions and eyes, which is then transmitted to the computers. This way, Cameron intends to transfer about 95% of the actors' performances to their digital counterparts. Besides a real time virtual world, the team is also experimenting with a way of letting computer generated characters interact with real actors on a real, live-action set while shooting live action.
the problem is, you cannot have a human in a suit be as strangely disproportionate as these aliens are, which is entirely why they are cg.
Yep, but is that really necesary? Why JC cannot just use normal-sized blue humans? They are like Cg yonkies... they have to use Cg for anything, and that's why most of the modern movies lost "feeling". It's very hard for an actor to watch a chroma and act with just a green thing on their front... and it's very hard also to reproduce all the expressions a good human actor makes in a Cged face.
Cg should be used only for very complex or dangerous scenes.
I think the main point is, we shouldn't be questioning james camerons ability to make awesome movies
I thought precisely that about George Lucas until he decided to derail Star Wars with the new episodes(specially the #1) and Indy 4....
And perhaps it's not really JC's fault... producers make some noise and, as they are paying, the director has to make what he's told to do.
Honestly, isn't this a moot point? I enjoyed Reboot, and it looked like this:
Well, if the movie enjoys you then it's ok!
The problem starts when the 90% of the budget goes to the Cg and you have to reduce the quality(or quantity) of the actors, the history/script and other things to pay the effects.
Other technological innovations include a performance-capture stage, called The Volume, which is six times larger than previously used and an improved method of capturing facial expressions. The tool is a small individually made skull cap with a tiny camera attached to it, located in front of the actors' face which collects information about their facial expressions and eyes, which is then transmitted to the computers. This way, Cameron intends to transfer about 95% of the actors' performances to their digital counterparts. Besides a real time virtual world, the team is also experimenting with a way of letting computer generated characters interact with real actors on a real, live-action set while shooting live action.
JC is introducing a lot of new technologies in Avatar. That's goood and he has all my respect for that.... but let's take a look to some previous experiments trying to capture the human face's expression:
I guess I'll hope for the best. Reason being is that if the story and dialogue deliver I'm sure I'll be able to overlook the rest. I love wall-e and hes just a metal box. Think the reason people question whether it will work is because its a lead character and its getting close to the whole uncanny valley thing.
Also Golem was great in LoTR and he played a pretty major part. But I'm still not a fan of the 3D movie stuff.
But like was stated earlier no super blockbuster type movie that goes on about CG has really delivered in regard to story or dialogue. So I don't really see a reason to be excited.
Replies
You know what would have been epic in 3d? Dune.
The crew here don't seem terribly impressed.
So was I, and to be honest after rewatching the trailer a few times I have to say that in addition to being hamfisted, I've got a bad feeling the movie will be sappy too. You know, in between the explosions.
Because Titanic made a metric titload of money.
Watched the trailer, and i can't help but think it's trying to do what district 9 did, but without passion (create empathy for digital characters (avatars)).
District 9 showed us that money didn't matter. Avatar i think will do the same.
LMAO
Hahahahaha.....o man
Wasn't too excited by the trailer looks more along the lines of transformers or the new starwars films than anything. Maybe all its trying to be is just a huge cg action fest, which is fine I was just expecting a little more depth due some of the hype its getting. Probably a bit too early to tell, I'll try to reserve judgment until it comes out.
They're making a new Dune, haven't started filming yet so they can do it in 3D...
http://img.denihilation.com/
these kind of comparos are a bit lame though.. most of those shots could be in a handfull of movies.
Still, that's pretty funny.
Even though I think this looks kinda fun, I predict big budget dissapointment.
Also about the water tank shot. Jar Jar is exactly how I feel too. Now swap that blue alien dude with a real actor who knows how to move with proper body language, in a Abe Sapien costume, and bam the shot becomes awesome.
The trailer shows most of the stuff I don't like about recent 'easy' CGI scifi, that's a bit sad.
Also I don't like how they force the '3Dness' of establishing shots by giving them crazy paralax. Like in the tree forest shot. I like how regular CG matte paintings usually use very subtle cam movements to just suggest that the shot is alive. Here it's like WOOOOSH THREEDEE (even on the 2d trailer...)
also have to remember that in a general design sense that it isn't uncommon for things with a similar design sense to start channeling things that look 'right' for that look.
again it was the best cg I've seen...even without the 3d. I could have done without the 3d actually....the scenes they showed were breathtaking.
no don voiceover in trailer = instant win.
DEAR GOD!,man as long as they made it the 4/5hr long version and brought back a cg Sting i'd be happy :P
Fuck. YES! That book was awesome, but he had better not fuck it up like they ruined Starship Troopers.
1. Wouldn't work well enough with the polarized glasses, as there's a huge loss of brightness through the process. Colors are also muted considerably when you have the glasses on.
2. You're supposed to fall in love with the alien planet, kinda opposing the audience reaction that the Alien movies aim for.
But wait until you see Earth in the movie...
The acting is perfect in the 15 minute segment. It's almost creepy when you see a somewhat blueish, young Ellen Ripley, for example.
Realize that because of the 3D there's absolutely no room for cheats here. No sprites, no 2D smoke, no 2D matte paintings, nothing. Everything is built in 3D.
Wouldn't call that easy.
It feels amazing in the theatre, at least to me.
Oh and wait until there's flying...
The only trouble is that Verhoeven's movie is a satire of the book, hence it makes fun of the pathos and the ideas from Heinlein's original. You know, some consider ST facist, with the citizenship issues and war-driven society and all... that's why the movie borrows a lot of nazi imagery and such in the PR segments.
It is a very good movie IMHO, but not an adaptation of the book, that's all. Just like Robocop, also far more then a cheesy SF-action movie
I know, but as far as I'm concerned Starship Troopers is three things: Power armor, bugs and fascism, and Verhoeven left out the coolest of the three.
Definitely a movie that needs a remake.
Trying..... to ..... not..... hate.
Also what happens when it comes out on dvd/bluray? Pretty much screwed on the 3d front? Or hows that work?
first of all, coraline was super cool in 3d for me. In a big enough theater to cover your peripheral vision, 3d works amazing. Materials and textures really come to life as well.
As for dvd/blur ray, the movie is converted for red-blue glasses. Pretty much lame old 3d.
(when the guy in the wheelchair is comming out from the ship the mech is on the left)
Totally agree. I can appreciate the satire, but I wasn't looking at starship troopers book as political commentary, just scifi fantasy, so I didn't really have an opinion on fascism,military rule, or human rights; it was just a cool semi-distopian future.
Problem is the satire has spawned an entire franchise for itself so hard to get a budget and liscense to make the other.
Of course a Cg character can express emotions... but the question is... better than a good actor? I don't think so. I could understand the need of Cg for extreme or impossible scenes where you cannot use a stunt or a robot... the problem is that the current paradigm is to abuse the Cg automatically for all the scenes: Do you want an explosion? Ok let's do it with Cg. Do you want a strange character? Ok, make it using Cg. Do you want bullet's hit? Ok, let's make it with Cg. Arnold said that he won't appear in Salvation... now what? Ok, let's grab T1-T2 images and build a Cg character for T4... Cg is not always the solution for all!
About the trailer: I liked the real scenes. I disliked almost all the Cg ones, specially the blue characters and the tonemapping applied in some parts of the compositions.
About the 3D preview: innovative technique but I fear some image stability making you a bit dizzy and unconfortable. For the 15 mins was near ok but I'm afraid for the 3 hours movie this gonna be a problem.
Some cruel critics(always funny) I've read in some newspapers:
"A 90% of the budget went for Cg. The history told us that, when this happens, the script, actors and the history might be weak".
"I've been a theatre director for many years and I found almost all the new Hollywood's films Cged character's interpretations simply absurd. I cannot image the final Blade Runner's scene done by Gollum or Jar-jar Binks."
"Smurfar"
"Graphically speaking: a mix between Matrix revolutions, Star Wars episode 1 and Crysis".
"The 3D effect is very good.... if you want to vomit or you need a nice headache's excuse for not making the love. 3D glasses are very good also.... if you want to irritate your nose and ears"
"Jar Jar Binks in blue with BIG eyes multiplied by 1000"
"These new films are made in this way: Sam, look at the chroma three-headed monster on your back - Sam looks - Director says: no no no, stop! Not in that way, Sam! I told you a three headed monster not like a TWO headed!"
I won't listen the critics though... beautiful or not I'll go to watch in 3D just to see the effect, but I have a bad feeling about the movie itself...
As for "real" scenes .... I thought *all* of them were computer generated? Or maybe I didn't get it right.
On the other hand, Avatar's aliens do know about good acting, and you can certainly not replicate anything even near their expressive range with silicone masks or even just makeup. And Chewbacca is not a lead actor in SW, doesn't really get to do much...
The question is... the Nav'is aren't very complex and they're humanoid really. Why not to get a woman, put her some strange contact lens and a blue makeup and voil
This movie will be made or broken by the story; the "all CG 3d ooh ahh" line is just publicity wank material.
Cg should be used only for very complex or dangerous scenes.
I thought precisely that about George Lucas until he decided to derail Star Wars with the new episodes(specially the #1) and Indy 4....
And perhaps it's not really JC's fault... producers make some noise and, as they are paying, the director has to make what he's told to do.
Well, if the movie enjoys you then it's ok!
The problem starts when the 90% of the budget goes to the Cg and you have to reduce the quality(or quantity) of the actors, the history/script and other things to pay the effects.
JC is introducing a lot of new technologies in Avatar. That's goood and he has all my respect for that.... but let's take a look to some previous experiments trying to capture the human face's expression:
Gollum:
http://www.serkis.com/mocapgollum.htm
Pirates of the caribean ( Davy Jones ):
Angelina on Beowulf:
Convincing results? No dout, but when you've been in theatres several years, that's nothing compared with these interpretations:
or
, just two examples.
I'll believe a Cg actor when if it wins the Oscar to the best actor/actress! :poly142:
Also Golem was great in LoTR and he played a pretty major part. But I'm still not a fan of the 3D movie stuff.
But like was stated earlier no super blockbuster type movie that goes on about CG has really delivered in regard to story or dialogue. So I don't really see a reason to be excited.