Avatar (James Cameron) - Page 6  

I need to remember to go home and watch this again, i've only watched it on my iphone and the quality was crap!

Maybe the issue will be addressed within the narrative of the film itself.  If so, I withdraw my criticisms.  For the sake of argument, I'll assume for now that no such justification will be provided.

Given that the planet depicted in the film appears relatively earth-like, I could buy into the fact that the dominant lifeform would be a bipedal, upright creature.  But the similarities to humans of Avatar's aliens go far beyond what I think one could expect to develop as a necessary consequence of evolving in such an environment:  a very human-like head and face, with eyes, nose, mouth, ears and hair exactly where they appear on a human; arms and legs with knees, hands, feet, and digits pretty much exactly like a human's.

I love Cameron's work and am sure that I'll be able to enjoy Avatar in spite of this glaring implausibility.  Nevertheless, I believe that it IS an implausibility and something that I was hoping would be done better in a movie I've been anticipating has highly as this one.

i guess, though isn't it the marriage of the delivery and the content? i mean, it's the wonder at walking again after who knows how long that makes how he says what he says so powerful...

i dunno - if he said "i just farted" instead, i probably wouldn't have been as moved... 

Carl, your assumption is very likely correct.  While I acknowledge the implausibility, I'll raise you the (not) impossibility.  It is NOT impossible.  Most animals on earth have two eyes (for three dimensionality), two ears (for stereo and depth), and a mouth.  FWIW, what you think is hair is NOT hair.  Besides, it is even MORE implausible that a human could "control" a body beyond it's sphere of understanding, so we're stuck between a rock and a hard place :)  Humanoid design is a benchmark of speculative fiction for quite some time.  I think we are expected to go with it, as we do in most of these films (and a good number of hard sci-fi books).

john, of course.  But you are working at the edges of my point, not dead center.  What he says matters, but not nearly as much as how he says it (since he says what a Marine would say) :)

If four-legged animals like dogs had the intelligence we do and could stand upright (for walking normally, not while trying to perform a trick or reach a countertop), that wouldn't be so different to an alien looking at earth.

Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, even genitals are in similar places to a person on an animal, tail or no tail. Now, I don't know if my saying that has any relevance at all but that's what came to mind when reading all of these comments about the look of the Na'vi.

Fictionally speaking, I would find the idea of using a non-humanoid lifeform as an avatar completely implausible, our brain simply wouldn't be able to relate to the physiological controls.

So though it may go unsaid, I would think this a very obvious and logical reason why we would choose to interact with such a human species, and that it's likely there are far more alien creatures to be found as well.

Making humans the bad guys is never a good idea for a sci-fi action flick. If one needs proof, check out the box office take of Battle For Terra.

The story does address this to some extent.  The avatars are not aliens.  They are a specific hybrid between alien and human.  As an example, avatars have 5 fingers, and the Na'vi have 4.  There is a bit more to it than that, but the story does address that.

And I think Battle for Terra had bigger problems.

Can I ask how you got it to play on your PS3? I'd love to get it working there too, but I gather the PS3 doesn't recognize quicktime. Did you have to convert it first?

I got to see the 16-minute preview a few hours ago, and I thought it was significantly better than the teaser trailer.  And I liked the teaser. :)

I saw it in one of those new "faux" IMAX 3D theaters, so the screen wasn't as big but it was closer to the audience.  The 3D effect is pretty darn cool about 70% of the time, usually when the camera is relatively stationary. However, when the action heats up the picture becomes a blurry mess, and this was frustrating. There were a few times I wished I could take the glasses off and watch it in 2D. The picture was also somewhat unfocused around the edges - perhaps due to the slightly curved IMAX screen?  I don't know.

Watching some of the scenes on Pandora, I got a distinct "King Kong" (2005) feel. The place is like Skull Island on steroids. Weta's talents are a good fit here. The CGI work is absolutely stunning, and it didn't take me long to go from "How did they do that?" to just plain enjoying the ride. And if this preview is any indication, that's exactly what audiences are in for this December: a fun 2-1/2 hour ride. I think it's going to make pretty big money, because there seems to be something here for everyone: action, humor, a strong female protagonist, even medium-shot Na'vi female toplessness (the animators make no attempt to ensure Neytiri remains "strategically covered" every time she leaps into action). I'm sure it'll still qualify for a PG-13 since it's all "fake," a la Angelina Jolie in "Beowulf," but it'll be interesting to see how some parents react.

Cameron said in his intro that the preview scenes were specifically chosen from the first half of the film, so "no spoilers." I've tried to remain pretty general in my description of the event, but will do my best to answer any questions about the footage or the viewing experience.

I use Yamb to split the Quicktime file into separate raw H.264 and AAC streams. I then convert the AAC -> multichannel WAV -> multichannel AC3 using foobar2000 and eac3to, respectively. Then I use Yamb again to combine the original H.264 stream with the new AC3 file in an MP4 container, and I've got a file that's all set to stream to my TiVo over my home network, with 1080p picture and DD5.1 sound. Takes about a minute to do.

I believe the PS3 supports MKV files, so I know it's popular to transcode to that format. I don't know the workflow process though. What I just described above was something I figured out after several hours of fumbling around in the dark, so to speak. Hooray for free software tools!

Watch out for the big bass boom at the 0:17 mark. :)

I went to the 16-minute IMAX preview today, mainly because it was free and I wanted to see how IMAX 3D worked at the Faux IMAX we have here in Albany. In a word, stunning. The time flew by. I'm definitely going to see the movie in December, and I'm definitely going to see it in IMAX, digital faux IMAX or otherwise.

I think this is the biggest divide between ILM and WETA. ILM has acheived total photorealism. They have created CG work, for example Davey Jones, that is literally indistinguishable from the live action footage. WETA has never acheived that, and I'm not sure they've even tried for it. Their work in LOTR and here is like the Pixar craft taken to the nth degree; you know you're watching animation, but it's beautifully rendered and exquistely crafted animation. They got some beautiful performances out of their creations in LOTR, and it looks like that's true here as well.

It makes sense on a lot of levels; for one thing, the planet we're trying to conquer can support human life. As John said, the fact that itt has breathable atmosphere limits evolution to a pretty similar path as to that found on Earth.

On a story level, for a human mind to be grafted into an alien body, there would need to be a similar brain and and a similar body. If the alien wasn't humanoid, there'd be no reference point for the human mind to work from.

That being said, the thing that struck me about the 16-minute preview was just how alien this world truly was. Traditionally, movies set on other planets have either copped out by using a desert, since sandy surfaces are the same everywhere, or just threw in the towel and presented a planet with exactly the same plant life as our own. From the animals to the plants all the way down to the insects, nothing about this place is exactly like Earth.

I didn't notice that, but it's good to know. I thought they had managed to capture some of the Na'vi, and simply overrided their brains with the data from the human brains. That is beyond horrific to my value system, and so hybrid clones with no memories of their own are a much easier pill to swallow.

That's interesting. This was my first 3D experience in a faux IMAX theater, and I was completely impressed. The RealD 3D system used on the regular digital screens at the same multiplex achieves the 3D effect but never ceases to feel artificial. The digital IMAX 3D system by contrast was rock solid. Sharp picture with vibrant, rich colors. The use of two projectors instead of one rapidly alternating picture eliminated the strobe light effect that I can't see but can feel with RealD. At times it was like looking through a window.

I saw also the avatar trailer. I was also very impressed. the 3D was just amazing. nothing that I had seen before even really compared. the effects were amazing.. the detail of the creatures. more so then say gollum or anything else. the 3D made you feel that you were there expereince the movie. there was some elements of stuff from other movies that you had seen before.. kinda a fresh look to it..kinda like district 9 with its references to other films. it was really cool to see ripley(actress)  in the movie as well. first time since aliens. looking forward to the movie in december.

Jacob

My wife and I went to the free screening at 6pm.  When I first saw the teaser trailer I was shocked by how cartoonish it seemed.  I mean it looked nice but I just wasn't gaga over it or anything.  I was almost to the point of feeling like I didn't really want to see it.

So....fast forward to this evening.  I must say it was the quickest 15 minutes that I've experienced in a long time.  I absolutely cannot wait for this movie.  As a matter of fact we already got our Dec 18 12:01am tickets it was that good.  The 3D immerses you in the scene instead of always being "in your face".  The "cartoonish" look was gone and it seemed so much more realistic.  This isn't Final Fantasy type CGI, it's better.

As was mentioned above, during some of the fast action it does seem to blur up and get hard to follow.  My wife whispered that she may need some dramamine because of that.  Even during some of the slow pans I could see some sort of blurring artifact.  But I'm going to look past that because it was all so wonderful.

I guess I'll say it again, I cannot wait for this movie.

I also saw the 16 minutes of footage in 3D in my local Imax.  For me I will definitely see the movie but I feel the jury is still out on how this will fare.  The biggest problem is that the "photo realism" of the CG was so hyped that it didn't live up to the expectations I had.  Throughout the whole preview I always had the feeling I was watching CG.  Almost like a Disney movie on steroids.  I think the problem is that the alien world Pandora is just that, so alien that we can't really comprehend that these scenes are photo realistic because the world is so foreign it doesn't seem real.  I am a huge Cameron fan but right now I am a little scared of how this might turn out.  But for those that have seen the trailer, the 3D footage blows it away.  I don't think they should have even had a trailer imho, should have just let the buzz generate from tonights "Avatar Day" previews.  Still, during most of the footage it felt like a high tech CG cartoon....but I am still optomistic Cameron can come through.  We will see come December.

Love the trailer and look very forward to the film. Hopefully the 3D effects are used with class and there's no "pop-out" type junk that ruins 3D films. I avoid 3D films for that reason, just too campy and cheesy with that kind of crap.

"I think this is the biggest divide between ILM and WETA. ILM has acheived total photorealism. They have created CG work, for example Davey Jones, that is literally indistinguishable from the live action footage. WETA has never acheived that, and I'm not sure they've even tried for it. Their work in LOTR and here is like the Pixar craft taken to the nth degree; you know you're watching animation, but it's beautifully rendered and exquistely crafted animation. They got some beautiful performances out of their creations in LOTR, and it looks like that's true here as well."

Glad I'm not the only one.  This was my immediate reaction after viewing the trailer in HD...what would it have looked like if ILM had done the job...especially after such accomplishments as the robots in Transformers and Davey Jones.

Maybe, I'll change my mind in Decemeber.

I'm quite thrilled WETA got the call.  Why would I want photorealism when I can have something better?  Besides ILM did their CG-heavy movies with the prequels.  I want to see WETA build a world.

Great reports from those who saw the preview.  I'm satisfied with the teaser, though I'll definitely be catching the film for the first time in IMAX 3D.  I'm actually worried about getting midnight tickets due to crowd interest.  I was lucky to get TDK tickets!

Chuck

The problem with your assessment was that Cameron and company touted photo-realism, and this is not it.  I didn't say it didn't look excellent or exciting.  There's some greatness in the trailer in terms of visuals  But, photo real, it isn't.  Hell, Pandora looks a lot like Kashyyyk and Felucia from Revenge of the Sith and that film was four years ago.

Maybe Adam is right.  Maybe Weta and Cameron decided to forgo photo realism for just pure fantasy.  I think people wouldn't have an issue if the words "game-changer" and "photo realism" was touted all the time with this picture.

Still ready to take this trip with Cameron in December but the hype has overtaken the reality, as of right now...

Avatar was written before TPM premiered, much less Episode III, so I don't think Cameron was inspired.  And it was quite descriptive of Pandora even back then.  EIII had a few scenes set on those planets (in short shots, designed solely for beauty).  Avatar is going beyond that for the environment.  I didn't see the preview, so I'll defer to what Adam said about the planet and it's inhabitants.

The interviews I've read with Cameron, it seems the 3D element is what he is calling game-changing.  And I can't speak to that.  With respect to the effects, I'll judge them when I see them on the big screen.  They look quite good in the teaser, at least as good as Transformers 2 (though certainly not Davey Jones, but close enough, and with a LOT MORE of such effects requiring a LOT MORE than Davey Jones did).  I don't get bent out of shape on hype.  I didn't when Joel Silver did it in 2002/2003, and I haven't done it with Cameron in 2007-2009.  No matter what, the guy has a $300M picture to sell to mainstream America.  He might be right, he might be wrong.  He might be discussing things beyond my understanding of the craft.  I don't care.  I can only respond to what I see visually.  And I have.

I just didn't understand why someone who want photorealism when they could have artistry, so I made that comment.  I'm sure ILM would rather have worked Avatar than a soulless exercise in pixels like TF2.  But considering their relative strengths (ILM is the best at detail, and WETA is the best at character development and animation), Cameron went with the right effects house.

Frankly, you want the film that blew my mind in the last few years for effects...The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

EDIT: So, if you are looking for a defense of any comments Cameron made about the effects being game changers based on the teaser, I cannot provide that.  There is nothing in the teaser that is game-changing.  Considering how good effects have gotten, I probably won't be able to defend a "effects game changer" statement with the movie itself.  I am defending how good the trailer looks, and the decision to choose WETA over ILM, which I think was a smart decision made by a director who knows their strengths and what he personally wants.
Edited by Chuck Mayer - 8/22/09 at 6:20am

Chuck,

I see your point but you can have artistry and photo realism at the same time.  I mean, ILM frequently did it with (most) of their environments in Episode I and Episode III.

And, yeah, maybe WETA is the best at character animation but what's the difference in character animation between what they did with Kong and Gollum compared to what ILM did with Davey Jones, Yoda, and Optimus Prime?

I mean, for Gollum, Kong, and Davey Jones, each company basically did the same thing in terms of animation..ie, using a real actor to create the performance.  The difference is in the amount of screen time for performance so ILM can't be blamed for that nor should they lose points for it either.  Gollum and Kong just had more to do than Jones and Yoda.  

The difference, as you say, is in the details.  And for me, that's the final piece to the polish.  ILM polishes like no other.  If WETA could get there, if they even prefer to do so, I could get behind them more often. 

That's why I made the comment about what Avatar would look like, just based on this trailer, if ILM had done the work.

A question for those who found the 3D blurry: where in the theater were you sitting? Because apparently dead center (where I was) is the only place where you get perfect registration of the effect.

I was in the dead center of the aisle but a little further down the rows instead of being directly in the center of the theater.

Edit:  Damn, I meant I was dead center in the row but a little further down in the theater.  Not directly in the center of the theater.
Edited by Shawn Shultzaberger - 8/22/09 at 8:19pm

 I was off center to the left side, and it wasn't blurry to me. The 3D was as good as it's ever been.

It's funny you say this because there were people behind me that were saying to get the best out of it you needed to be off center.

I was in the third row off to the left side. I thought it looked fined. .it was almost like it was made for any seat that you were in.. a least that is the impression that I had gotten.

Jacob

I am quite excited for the movie.  I am more than less impressed by some of the marketing for it.

 The preview screening on Friday night did exactly what it was supposed to do, it's got me very excited to see this movie. But, when they offered to sell us tickets to the 12:01 screening in December after the screening, I did look at them like they were smoking crack. Really? Buy tickets four months early?

They didn't do that at my screening. I just can't imagine comitting myself like that so far in advance. I don't think I've ever bought movie tickets more than a week in advance. I don't even know where I'll be living in December, much less whether I'll be available at midnight on a specific night in December.

The premise looks weak, regardless of the eye candy.