PDA

View Full Version : Avatar trailer up



Pages : [1] 2 3

pooby
08-20-2009, 09:19 AM
Heres the trailer, for anyone whos interested in such nonsense. Well, the french one anyway, Apple isn't ready yet apparently not that it makes any difference. Theres not really any dialogue.


http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx

hrgiger
08-20-2009, 09:25 AM
You know, it looks pretty cool and some of the effects look nice but it's too bad the focal point which seem to be the blue aliens whatever they are (don't know the story) look really fake and CG.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 09:32 AM
ummm...not sure...i've loved every james cameron film so far..this looks very clean, cinical, crsip looking..maybe i'm just so used to the battle star galactica 'look'..with it's grungy, dirty, noisey look...

pooby
08-20-2009, 09:36 AM
Its very gamey looking - but he's a very good storyteller. I'm sure It'll be great.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Its very gamey looking - but he's a very good storyteller. I'm sure It'll be great.


yeah i'm sure that if james cameron dicided to use glove puppets it's would ROCK!...he's a great storyteller fo sure.:thumbsup:

bobakabob
08-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Loved the first half, some impressive well lit enigmatic opening shots and the lack of dialogue was a nice touch. But agree with hrgiger the tension all but disappeared with the introduction of the CG aliens. Hope it isn't too like watching a glorified computer game on the big screen. Too much Hollywood CGI these days seems to be about showing off vacuous displays of technique rather than telling a story. Nevertheless it's surely a must see. Watched Aliens again recently and it's still brilliant.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 09:43 AM
aliens=best film ever made

oh thanks for the link pooby btw :thumbsup:

JML
08-20-2009, 09:48 AM
Hmm not what I thought.. seems like half is realistic and half is cartoony..
I'll see it anyway because it's james cameron but not really excited after that video..
the "guys in blue" look like as cheesy/bad as startreck characters :)

Andyjaggy
08-20-2009, 09:48 AM
I'm pretty excited for this one. I'm definitely going to the imax for this one. Hopefully it's not a disappointment.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 10:02 AM
HD download

http://customds.serving-sys.com/VideoServices/HDProject/avatar/hd_video.flv

Kuzey
08-20-2009, 10:06 AM
Doesn't look anything like the original cartoon as far as the design of characters go and what is it with robots and aliens...anyway. Another Hollywood touch I guess...it's not cool if it doesn't have robots and aliens :help:


Kuzey

biliousfrog
08-20-2009, 10:08 AM
Heres the trailer, for anyone whos interested in such nonsense. Well, the french one anyway, Apple isn't ready yet apparently not that it makes any difference. Theres not really any dialogue.


http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx

Apple trailers in HD: http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/avatar/hd/

biliousfrog
08-20-2009, 10:19 AM
Doesn't look anything like the original cartoon as far as the design of characters go


Kuzey

You're joking right?...right?

The environments looked pretty but I'm extremely underwhelmed with the whole trailer TBH. The characters looked quite unbelievable to me and the proportions seemed anatomically wrong. It also seemed like the live action stuff actually looked less real than the CG in some of the shots, like the compositing was slightly off.

In summary, from that trailer, I don't understand what is so revolutionary about it when Starship Troopers looked just as epic all those years ago...although I'm sure it will be amazing, after all, it is the guy that did Titanic ;)

cresshead
08-20-2009, 10:26 AM
download the trailer....
go to imi's site and play track 8 over the trailer..start it about a min in on the song then hit play on the trailer...turn up and kick it!

....rocks up the whole thing...totally better!
http://www.imogenheap.com/ellipse/

biliousfrog
08-20-2009, 10:29 AM
download the trailer....
go to imi's site and play track 8 over the trailer..start it about a min in on the song then hit play on the trailer...turn up and kick it!

....rocks up the whole thing...totally better!
http://www.imogenheap.com/ellipse/

:agree:

I just read your post on CGTalk, I agree, it's LOADS better. I actually started them the same time and it works really well with the build during the start.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 10:32 AM
:agree:

I just read your post on CGTalk, I agree, it's LOADS better. I actually started them the same time and it works really well with the build during the start.

just goes to show how important sound/music is...i'm TOTALLY up for this film now i played it with imi's music!:D

yeah works good near synced f rom the start or from about a min in...it sets the feel much better than what's used on the trailer in my opinion....abit like the sound track chosen for the gears of war trailer was.

Dexter2999
08-20-2009, 11:11 AM
I don't think it looks "bad" but after almost two years of hype on the web I think expectations were higher.

The aliens look a step down from the zombies in I AM LEGEND. The action sequences look pretty outrageous.

AND...it's supposed to be cutting edge 3D right? I think that is what a lot of the hype has been about. So, that might get some points with some of you guys.

I think we are all still comparing every 3D character to Gollum. Even though we know that isn't fair because there was a whole team for that one character. Now we are talking about many many more characters. It just isn't realistic to expect that level of perfection on such a huge scale to be done by humans. (Even if you outsource to armies of animators in India and China.)

Maybe the future of MASSIVE will incorperate breathing, blinking, etc... so animators will concentrate on one or two principal characters while software takes care of the background. Who knows?

IgnusFast
08-20-2009, 12:04 PM
Doesn't look anything like the original cartoon as far as the design of characters go and what is it with robots and aliens...anyway. Another Hollywood touch I guess...it's not cool if it doesn't have robots and aliens :help:


Kuzey

You sure you're not thinking about "Avatar: The Last Airbender", which is a completely different, but also live-action movie being made? That one is an M. Night Shamylan picture, not James Cameron.

AdamAvenali
08-20-2009, 12:23 PM
You sure you're not thinking about "Avatar: The Last Airbender", which is a completely different, but also live-action movie being made? That one is an M. Night Shamylan picture, not James Cameron.

i thought the same exact thing when i first opened this thread haha i was unaware there were two of the same things, but totally different, going on.
http://www.thelastairbendermovie.com/

Kuzey
08-20-2009, 01:12 PM
You sure you're not thinking about "Avatar: The Last Airbender", which is a completely different, but also live-action movie being made? That one is an M. Night Shamylan picture, not James Cameron.

Ha ha...tickle me pink. I thought they took the base idea and turned the characters into aliens :D

Why call it Avatar in the first place, was this based on some comic book or is it an "original" idea.

The scene where the guy in the wheelchair rolls out of the aircraft, he looks all CG. Could be a problem with the movie when going back and forth between real actors and their CG stand ins, when things are obvious like that...unless my eyes are playing tricks :hey:

Kuzey

StereoMike
08-20-2009, 01:24 PM
at first I thought: Cool, have heard lots about it, seems to be a feast for action freaks.
But when these blue guys populated my screen I only thought: WTF, is this "Jar Jar Binks - The Movie"???

mike

IgnusFast
08-20-2009, 01:31 PM
I think Avatar is supposed to be original - as a gaming/scifi metaphore it's not very new, but as a hollywood movie, it seems pretty original.

Take handicapped people to another planet where they can mind-control an alien body to work (thus the Avatar), then they get involved in the resulting alien civil war. Seems pretty unique. :)

Dexter2999
08-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Ha ha...tickle me pink. I thought they took the base idea and turned the characters into aliens :D

Why call it Avatar in the first place, was this based on some comic book or is it an "original" idea.

The scene where the guy in the wheelchair rolls out of the aircraft, he looks all CG. Could be a problem with the movie when going back and forth between real actors and their CG stand ins, when things are obvious like that...unless my eyes are playing tricks :hey:

Kuzey


I think it is called AVATAR because the guy in the wheelchair transfers his consciousness into the alien body? Just a guess. So the body acts likes an online Avatar in a game?

Larry_g1s
08-20-2009, 01:39 PM
meh...Not feeling it for this movie. I'm not a fan of the design, and the CG just looked too CG.

JeffrySG
08-20-2009, 01:47 PM
You sure you're not thinking about "Avatar: The Last Airbender", which is a completely different, but also live-action movie being made? That one is an M. Night Shamylan picture, not James Cameron.

;) Yeah, I was just about to say that...

I actually like the Last Airbender series... I've been watching it on Netflix instant watch... I'm curious to see how the movie version will be.

I'm also really curious to see the next trailer for this movie. Trailers can be so deceiving... as to the actual storyline.

Kuzey
08-20-2009, 02:01 PM
That makes sense, the idea actually sounds a bit like the short novel "The shadow out of time" by H.P Lovecraft. But in that, the aliens could send their consciousness through time as well. Super read btw :D

Kuzey

SplineGod
08-20-2009, 02:10 PM
Im pretty excited to see it myself. Weta did the CG and Camerons a top notch director/storyteller. This is something hes been wanting to do for a long time.
I was fortunate enough to spend several months working on some of the Previz for this and it was pretty cool to work with some incredibly talented concept artists and to be immersed in it on a daily basis. so far its looking pretty cool. :)

Ågrén
08-20-2009, 02:17 PM
Aww, that look is soo family friendly. Budget/expectation was too high I guess. Dissapointed atm but still gonna eyeball it for sure.

JeffrySG
08-20-2009, 02:40 PM
That makes sense, the idea actually sounds a bit like the short novel "The shadow out of time" by H.P Lovecraft. But in that, the aliens could send their consciousness through time as well. Super read btw :D

Kuzey

Cool I'll have to check out "The shadow out of time". I just downloaded it from ManyBooks.net.
http://manybooks.net/titles/lovecrafthother06shadowoutoftime.html It's out of copyright in the States now.

shrox
08-20-2009, 02:53 PM
Big eyed, blue, pitiful looking aliens, I'd shoot them too.

Kuzey
08-20-2009, 02:54 PM
Cool I'll have to check out "The shadow out of time". I just downloaded it from ManyBooks.net.
http://manybooks.net/titles/lovecrafthother06shadowoutoftime.html It's out of copyright in the States now.

Cool....I downloaded it through the Stanza app for the iPhone/iPod touch. I love that app :hey:

Let us know if you liked it :)

Kuzey

tyrot
08-20-2009, 04:16 PM
dear cameron


Remove the name "cameron"...show this too people...especially to JIN..and get "the real response"...
Come on cameron you lead the field once but please be our guest in CGTALK and get a real avatar there.. I am afraid you will meet with your "waterworldish" destiny.

And i cannot believe even he is following the rule of "When you show a monster make it growl till it hurt his butt to scare something in its radius" what a game cinematic moment that was...and the end... oh boy...

change the name to AWFULATAR....that suits well..
BEST ?

Intuition
08-20-2009, 05:01 PM
Jeez, after watching D-9 last Friday, this feels almost "made for tv" in comparison.

I mean, I know the fx are better then made for TV stuff but.... it didn't feel that way by looking at it. When I heard about the "aliens from Avatar" hype from Comic Con I guess my imagination did them 10 x better then what they really were.

Mike_RB
08-20-2009, 05:30 PM
Alien Pocahontas Smurfs, FTW!

erikals
08-20-2009, 07:53 PM
cg skin is the trickiest thing one can do, they should have used puppets for reference.
..or smurfs.

congrats on the job SplineGod... : )

cresshead
08-20-2009, 07:56 PM
wow, some much 'dislike' for this film from people!...

i'll judge the film not 'pre judge the film' from the first trailer.
james cameron make's iconic long lasting stories in film.

he had the same non belief in the film's pre prod and trailer from people on titanic...
and that became THE biggest grossing film in the history of cinema...

get ready to eat a huge chunk of humble pie...

shrox
08-20-2009, 08:03 PM
wow, some much 'dislike' for this film from people!...

i'll judge the film not 'pre judge the film' from the first trailer.
james cameron make's iconic long lasting stories in film.

he had the same non belief in the film's pre prod and trailer from people on titanic...
and that became THE biggest grossing film in the history of cinema...

get ready to eat a huge chunk of humble pie...

I just don't like the design of the aliens. And Cameron did have a flop, "Strange Days". I wanted to like it, but I just didn't.

cresshead
08-20-2009, 08:39 PM
And Cameron did have a flop, "Strange Days". I wanted to like it, but I just didn't.

Strange Days was written by him and he also wrote the screen play but he did not direct it, which is an important point to bring up...he's wrote/helped in a few films and tv shows but the ultimate post for the resulting film is usually in the hand of the 'director', so you didn't like Kathryn Bigelow's direction of his story.

so to clarify Kathryn Bigelow had a flop.

i'm pretty sure if a studio gave me a james cameron script of aliens back in 1985 and i had a bash at making it..it would have been a flop
doesn't mean james cameron was the reason though, he decided NOT to make the film..and the studio past the script on to another director.

jin choung
08-20-2009, 09:34 PM
yep... very cg-ey... nothing revolutionary on display. just a lot of graphics.

disappointed that this was what all the hubbub was about. i'm hoping that the stereoscopy really blows the doors off that component of the medium... but in terms of getting past the valley of the uncanny.... nope.

story wise, it's weird that battle for terra and bruce willis' surrogates kinda takes the thunder from the concepts in this movie.

but i've got confidence that it's gonna be an exciting movie (and heck, if i saw spirits within, there's no possible justification not to see this)... just was expecting somewhat more... especially considering the money spent and the secrecy.

jin

jin choung
08-20-2009, 09:37 PM
Strange Days was written by him and he also wrote the screen play but he did not direct it, which is an important point to bring up...he's wrote/helped in a few films and tv shows but the ultimate post for the resulting film is usually in the hand of the 'director', so you didn't like Kathryn Bigelow's direction of his story.

so to clarify Kathryn Bigelow had a flop.


very true. but her hurt locker rocked... as did point break.

also she's a total and perhaps only dilf.

jin

StereoMike
08-21-2009, 01:29 AM
just want to learn a bit English: Jin, what's the meaning of your post?
(I thought you refer to Bigelow, but then you name her dilf =dad?)

jin choung
08-21-2009, 01:39 AM
just want to learn a bit English: Jin, what's the meaning of your post?
(I thought you refer to Bigelow, but then you name her dilf =dad?)

dilf = director i'd like to [email protected]#$^

variation on milf

jin

biliousfrog
08-21-2009, 01:42 AM
I'm guessing - Director?

biliousfrog
08-21-2009, 01:42 AM
damn, beat me to it :D

NanoGator
08-21-2009, 01:44 AM
O_o

DiedonD
08-21-2009, 01:51 AM
At first I thought it was a good story about somewhat lattest thing about real Avatars, the things we have in here as well in NT.

Then Cameroon mentioned, which Im not that much of a fan of him, I thoght this will me mediocre story about those real avatars that we have em.

When mentioned Aliens, I thought that Aliens were making Avatars and using it to learn our human behavior through forums - story by Cameron.

And then! I saw that on the trailer! :confused:

erikals
08-21-2009, 03:14 AM
ok, everyone Not watching this movie put your hands up... :P
hehe, that;s what i though... :D

biliousfrog
08-21-2009, 03:52 AM
:rock: ...sorry, that's the closest I could get.

I'll wait for a better trailer and/or unbiased reviews but in all honesty it didn't make me want to see it at a cinema.

I couldn't care less about the technical achievments, I want to see a good film, and it looks too much like yet another reworking of Fern Gully, Pocahontas, Battle for Terra, Delgo...here come the evil Europeans to invade America, let's stop destroying the planet, bad man turns renegade after falling in love with the enemy.

'But it's Weta and Cameron!!!'

Jar Jar Binks was Lucas....and?

The story sounds incredibly unoriginal, the visuals look extremely cliche (blue aliens, flying manta rays, floating mountains, soldiers in mecha) and some of the designs look very ameteurish....why are the mecha holding guns with hands?!?

JeffrySG
08-21-2009, 08:52 AM
I must admit that when I first started watching the trailer, I wasn't sure if it was a live action or a full CG animated film. Then it seemed like it was live action with a lot of cg elements and then halfway through it felt more like a cg animated film look. I think if it's supposed to be 'real' live action footage so many of the scenes are way to vibrant and look way too saturated to simulate real camera footage. The 2nd half definitely has a animated film look and feel which isn't bad if the whole film is supposed to be like that. It had me a little baffled...

GCL
08-21-2009, 08:57 AM
Trailer looked real good and as stated before, movie has no association whatsoever
to Last Airbender Anime. Cameron years earlier (before Last Airbender) had the movie/book rights already in place including the title. Something else I did not read here is the 3D (glasses) theme of the flick.

littlewaves
08-21-2009, 09:21 AM
very true. but her hurt locker rocked... as did point break.

also she's a total and perhaps only dilf.

jin

can I put a vote forward for Sofia Coppola?

Although she does have a bit of that Pete Townshend "looking at myself in the back of a spoon" shape to her face

-EsHrA-
08-21-2009, 09:21 AM
just watched the HD trailer... wow.. looks ehm... uber cheeze!?..
didnt expect that...

1 avatar = 5 d9?!!...

meh..


mlon

Mr Rid
08-21-2009, 09:30 AM
Reminds of Battle for Terra (which reminds of Blue Submarine No.6) with humans as the invaders, low-tech but wise aliens with big dough eyes and flat noses riding flappy-winged transports, and a human dude winds up sympathizing with a alien chick. 'We are all the same beneath the skin.' 'Make love, not war.' 'Never get off the boat.'

76446

76445

Cageman
08-21-2009, 09:47 AM
AND...it's supposed to be cutting edge 3D right? I think that is what a lot of the hype has been about. So, that might get some points with some of you guys.

Uh...

The cutting edge 3D is about the fact that the movie is done with stereoscopic 3D in mind (as in everything was filmed with such camerarigs, all CG-effects etc, of course, done with this technique as well). Has nothing to do with vfx.

So I guess you have to see it on IMAX with 3D-glasses before making a judgment if you think it has revolutionized stereoscopic 3D production.

biliousfrog
08-21-2009, 09:53 AM
Uh...

The cutting edge 3D is about the fact that the movie is done with stereoscopic 3D in mind (as in everything was filmed with such camerarigs, all CG-effects etc, of course, done with this technique as well). Has nothing to do with vfx.

So I guess you have to see it on IMAX with 3D-glasses before making a judgment if you think it has revolutionized stereoscopic 3D production.

That is part of the hype but Cameron has also stated that the CG is the most realistic yet...:rolleyes:

shrox
08-21-2009, 09:55 AM
can I put a vote forward for Sofia Coppola?

Although she does have a bit of that Pete Townshend "looking at myself in the back of a spoon" shape to her face

I think she is a good director, I really liked "Marie Antoinette".

cresshead
08-21-2009, 09:55 AM
Uh...

The cutting edge 3D is about the fact that the movie is done with stereoscopic 3D in mind (as in everything was filmed with such camerarigs, all CG-effects etc, of course, done with this technique as well). Has nothing to do with vfx.

So I guess you have to see it on IMAX with 3D-glasses before making a judgment if you think it has revolutionized stereoscopic 3D production.

no need for that....

sort out which is your dominant eye..mine is my left eye..
close your right eye/put your hand over your right eye [if your left is the dominnt eye]

your brain then 'creates' depth from just the information from your dominant eyes image.

doesn't work for everyone, but works for me!

some find squinting the less dominant eye also works..
as posted by master Zap on cgtalk.

try it.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 09:56 AM
That is part of the hype but Cameron has also stated that the CG is the most realistic yet...:rolleyes:

Well, the shots with the Avatars waking up (where one of them says "This is great!") I mean... those guys looked real to me...100% there in front of the real lens.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 09:59 AM
no need for that....

sort out which is your dominant eye..mine is my left eye..
close your right eye/put your hand over your right eye [if your left is the dominnt eye]

your brain then 'creates' depth from just the information from your dominant eyes image.

doesn't work for everyone, but works for me!

some find squinting the less dominant eye also works..
as posted by master Zap on cgtalk.

try it.

LOL

With this trailer? Don't think so... I have to wait for a stereoscopic trailer to test that... right?

Mike_RB
08-21-2009, 10:02 AM
LOL

With this trailer? Don't think so... I have to wait for a stereoscopic trailer to test that... right?

No, getting rid of the binocular aspect of both eyes telling you the image is flat does help. Having both eyes open CONFRIMS to your brain that you are seeing a flat image. With a single eye your brain can make mistakes and feed you the information that it has depth. This actually works quite well.

shrox
08-21-2009, 10:02 AM
I think I am just getting tired of aliens that are derivatives of human anatomy in general, although bipeds with stereo vision seems to be a universal model from an engineering and efficiency viewpoint, the "prawn" from D-9 are interesting. But how do they keep from biting their face tentacles when eating? I bit my lip just yesterday, and that's with no tentacles...

cresshead
08-21-2009, 10:09 AM
No, getting rid of the binocular aspect of both eyes telling you the image is flat does help. Having both eyes open CONFRIMS to your brain that you are seeing a flat image. With a single eye your brain can make mistakes and feed you the information that it has depth. This actually works quite well.

yeah it DOES work...as mike says..

try it...doesn't cost anything!:D

Cageman
08-21-2009, 10:10 AM
No, getting rid of the binocular aspect of both eyes telling you the image is flat does help. Having both eyes open CONFRIMS to your brain that you are seeing a flat image. With a single eye your brain can make mistakes and feed you the information that it has depth. This actually works quite well.

Hehe... and that is EXACTLY the same thing as viewing a movie like this (done completely in stereoscopic 3D from start to finish), on an IMAX screen with 3D-glasses?

I'm not convinced that what you suggest will give the same effect.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 10:10 AM
yeah it DOES work...as mike says..

try it...doesn't cost anything!:D

I just did, and it didn't work. :)

cresshead
08-21-2009, 10:15 AM
I just did, and it didn't work. :)

well it does depend on the dominance of each eye...my left is waaay more dominant than my right so worked well...as in day to day life my left eye compensates for my weaker right eye.

if you have 20/20 vision then it's probably not going to work very well.

Originally Posted by MasterZap
Want to see it in 3D? Cheap trick: Close one eye.

The human mind is remarkable at deconstructing 3D information. We have many cues from the eyes for depth. And binocular vision is only ONE of them - but a very strong one. So binocular vision is telling you your screen is flat, pretty much overriding all the other cues.

Remove this by closing one eye, and you will see something rather surprising; your mind is now able to stretch the image into 3d with no stereoscopy needed.

So the solution is not 100 millions and stereo goggles, it's ye olde pirate eyepatch

Mike_RB
08-21-2009, 10:27 AM
I just did, and it didn't work. :) Pity, it looks much better if you let your brain fill in the visual depth cues. Try this.

get the 720p version downloading, make it full screen. Sit close enough so that you have little of the edge of your monitor in your field of vision and then close one eye and try and follow the main elements of each shot. With me I find my brain automatically takes the deep BG elements and forces them to a different 'depth'.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 10:28 AM
Well... I will have to try that technique further, but at any rate... I'm not sure I would want to sit through a movie with an eyepatch (and I still don't believe it will be the same).

Anyhow...

It seems that the original thread of this trailer has been removed from CGTalk... too many people having bad, bad things to say about the trailer, James, Weta, the technology etc..

:)

EDIT: Ohh... it's been moved, apparently.

Mike_RB
08-21-2009, 10:31 AM
the one eye trick makes the shots of the mechs/ the toe wiggling/ and the fire chick shot near the end really come alive.

Of course it's not 'the same'. but it's much closer than getting your brain to just scream FLAT! at you.

cresshead
08-21-2009, 10:36 AM
the trailer looks okay...though, much much better with imogen heaps music playing and a bit better still with only 1 eye open!

...just what length's ya gotta go to before you really enjoy a 'trailer'!

as for people slagging off the film..err it's not out..not till december 2009
it's not even finished yet...

biliousfrog
08-21-2009, 10:43 AM
I don't think that the artists should get any flack for it, they've done a great job, but it's hardly looking like the ground breaking, bar raising, hugely original movie that Cameron has been droning on about for the last few years. The subject matter is unoriginal, the CG is pretty standard fair and stereoscopic is nothing new either. I'm sure that it will be a fun film and a great experience in 3d but, when you look at D9 and Moon, I'm not convinced that the money and hype is going to be justified.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 10:43 AM
...just what length's ya gotta go to before you really enjoy a 'trailer'!

Just for the record, I did enjoy it alot and viewed it 10-15 times (720p version) around 5 clock this morning (yeah.. I woke up early). :) So, with or without stereoscopic effects, this is a movie I want to watch.

I did test your trick with imogens song, but, to be totaly honest, I liked the original music more.

Cageman
08-21-2009, 10:55 AM
stereoscopic is nothing new either.

True... but I would probably argue that this is the first movie produced with a pipeline designed for it, so to speak. Everything from filming to vfx has been shot with stereoscopic rigs. Even things like focal points etc have been created for the stereoscopic medium, so, I do belive they have done something quite new here.

This webinar (http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=252757#post252757) was really good, and I believe it will be avaliable for download/streaming soon.

JCG
08-21-2009, 11:15 AM
Well... I will have to try that technique further, but at any rate... I'm not sure I would want to sit through a movie with an eyepatch (and I still don't believe it will be the same).It's not the same. It's actually better, if it works for you. I get the exact same effect as when watching with 3D glasses (it freaked me out because I really did not expect this to work that well [at all]!) in a movie theater (non-Imax) but without losing 15% of the richness of the colors.

BTW has anyone noticed how easy it is to get a stereoscopic effect on the regular Nvidia driver installation screen, just by crossing your eyes a bit?

jin choung
08-21-2009, 11:18 AM
well it does depend on the dominance of each eye...my left is waaay more dominant than my right so worked well...as in day to day life my left eye compensates for my weaker right eye.

if you have 20/20 vision then it's probably not going to work very well.

Originally Posted by MasterZap
Want to see it in 3D? Cheap trick: Close one eye.

The human mind is remarkable at deconstructing 3D information. We have many cues from the eyes for depth. And binocular vision is only ONE of them - but a very strong one. So binocular vision is telling you your screen is flat, pretty much overriding all the other cues.

Remove this by closing one eye, and you will see something rather surprising; your mind is now able to stretch the image into 3d with no stereoscopy needed.

So the solution is not 100 millions and stereo goggles, it's ye olde pirate eyepatch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception

without two eyes, you can get everything in the "2d depth cues". you can get nothing from the "3d depth cues".

it's not the same thing.

and the 2d depth cues are the common ones that we use when drawing in perspective or even interpreting a space inside of a 2d movie.

jin

erikals
08-21-2009, 11:26 AM
hehe, certainly have,... ;)

jin choung
08-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Oh, so the one eye thing doesn't work by adding any kind of mysterious stereoscopic depth, it just removes CONFIRMATION that there is in fact no depth.

it doesn't add any depth, it just makes everything equally flat so that all you have are the. 2d depth cues. Nothing gets "stretched".

Jin

JCG
08-21-2009, 02:01 PM
Oh, so the one eye thing doesn't work by adding any kind of mysterious stereoscopic depth, it just removes CONFIRMATION that there is in fact no depth.

it doesn't add any depth, it just makes everything equally flat so that all you have are the. 2d depth cues. Nothing gets "stretched".

JinHowever, it looks the same. It even gives "deep" background objects the same annoying tingly-ness that movie 3D glasses do.

jin choung
08-21-2009, 02:12 PM
However, it looks the same. It even gives "deep" background objects the same annoying tingly-ness that movie 3D glasses do.

doesn't for me. not at all.

you can even test this the next time you're in a 3d movie by watching the movie with both eyes and then shutting one eye to see if it really looks the same.

it doesn't.

jin

TheDynamo
08-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Pretty images but I swear the end part is "Battle for Terra" with about 100x the budget.

-Rob

Mike_RB
08-21-2009, 05:18 PM
doesn't for me. not at all.

you can even test this the next time you're in a 3d movie by watching the movie with both eyes and then shutting one eye to see if it really looks the same.

it doesn't.

jin

Use your dominant eye, make it fullscreen, and get close enough to put most of your monitor frame into your peripheral vision.

Tom Wood
08-21-2009, 05:44 PM
The scriptment (hybrid script-treatment) for this was online years ago, and then slowly pulled down from all the screenplay sites. The guy in the wheelchair inhabits an alien in similar fashion to the way it worked in The Matrix, except they are two separate beings. In the scriptment the aliens were described as something more like a smooth skinned Raptor shaped lizardy thing.

jasonwestmas
08-21-2009, 06:37 PM
Its very gamey looking - but he's a very good storyteller. I'm sure It'll be great.

Yeah I will just be in jim henson muppet mode when watching it and will love it if the story and everything else is good.

jin choung
08-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Use your dominant eye, make it fullscreen, and get close enough to put most of your monitor frame into your peripheral vision.

again - it cannot possibly ADD anything.

it may "seem" somehow 3d because because all evidence of the fact that it is flat has been removed and all you have left are the 2d depth cues (again, see wikipedia quote) but what you're saying is that if i look at the world with a single eye, it will appear the same as if i saw it with two.

that's not the case.

this is sort of like saying that you can't tell it's dark when you close your eyes.

jin

Mike_RB
08-21-2009, 09:17 PM
again - it cannot possibly ADD anything.

it may "seem" somehow 3d because because all evidence of the fact that it is flat has been removed and all you have left are the 2d depth cues (again, see wikipedia quote) but what you're saying is that if i look at the world with a single eye, it will appear the same as if i saw it with two.

that's not the case.

this is sort of like saying that you can't tell it's dark when you close your eyes.

jin

Wrong. Everything you see is a hallucination your brain builds from the available data. What you see isn't mapped one to one on rods and cones like pixels. The brain decodes 7(ish, gonna have to re-read this stuff) different low rez streams and recombines them. One is edge detail, one is movement... IF you choke out the signals telling you its flat you DO see something different (or you see the same thing in a different way). Think about those stereo encoded images that used to be popular, the ones that look like noise, or how your brain can flip illusions around, or those color tests with the checkers that are online that turn out to be the same color....

Stooch
08-21-2009, 09:53 PM
lol. it looks better than terra for sure. i had a laugh at those comments.

im actually curious to see it. why not.

I dont want hyper realistic cg, if i wanted that - i could watch a real film. I dont get it, why are people so hard on it? Looks like some quality art to me, not easy to pull off just by anyone... The render of the humans is way beyond district 9 in terms of visual complexity. I think alot of people are fooled into thinking that CG is good just because it matches a live plate and has some of that blair witch camera shake... oooooh.. look at me with shaky hands... i just love to smoke crack while filming...

Much harder to pull it off when the entire plate is CG, so your eye isnt coaxed by the overall realness of the picture... Also that camera shake allows you to hide ****** modeling and texturing with motion blur... while the pristine and high res avatar render looks like an illustration to me.

district 9 blew donkey balls just judging by its story alone. no sense whatsoever. I came to district 9 expeting an awesome, ground breaking idea and came away with some kind of a prequel for independence day. with about as much sense and not really any more impressive visually.

anyway im checking this out. looks like it was fun to make. and hopefully the blue alien has some mammaries.

nothing like some big, blue amd perky mammaries to fap over.

and sheep.

Cageman
08-22-2009, 12:36 AM
lol. it looks better than terra for sure. i had a laugh at those comments.

im actually curious to see it. why not.

I dont want hyper realistic cg, if i wanted that - i could watch a real film.

In this case, I think hyperreal is something else than photorealistic reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

jin choung
08-22-2009, 03:18 AM
Wrong. Everything you see is a hallucination your brain builds from the available data. What you see isn't mapped one to one on rods and cones like pixels. The brain decodes 7(ish, gonna have to re-read this stuff) different low rez streams and recombines them. One is edge detail, one is movement... IF you choke out the signals telling you its flat you DO see something different (or you see the same thing in a different way). Think about those stereo encoded images that used to be popular, the ones that look like noise, or how your brain can flip illusions around, or those color tests with the checkers that are online that turn out to be the same color....

We seem to be talking past one another. So I'll end by simply referring to the wikipedia article I cited again. You get all the 2d depth cues - None of the 3d ones.

Jin

cresshead
08-22-2009, 03:40 AM
re the one eye thing...it looks cool...not caring if it's a 2d or 3d depth cue thing but it looks 'better' or more 'interesting' to me...which is all i can say.

Ågrén
08-22-2009, 03:58 AM
I think I am just getting tired of aliens that are derivatives of human anatomy in general, although bipeds with stereo vision seems to be a universal model from an engineering and efficiency viewpoint, the "prawn" from D-9 are interesting. But how do they keep from biting their face tentacles when eating? I bit my lip just yesterday, and that's with no tentacles...

I'm tired of humanoids also. I guess that the problem in this Avatar case is that the movie involves an alien love story (and the budget is really huuuge). Audience has to associate attraction to the girl and boy alien. It would not work for many if it was a love story of two gray slimes.

Tom Wood
08-22-2009, 07:11 AM
Heh, gray slimes. Inter-species love with tentacles worked in Galaxy Quest, but only because she could appear human.

erikals
08-22-2009, 07:22 AM
In this case, I think hyperreal is something else than photorealistic reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

nope, he said "hyper realistic cg" not "hyperreality" :hey:
for those curious of art, the hyperrealism as an artform can e.g. look like this,
http://www.umassmag.com/Fall_2005/images/983/close_310x310.jpg
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g51/89651/89651_1095243055.jpg

"exaggerating" reality

Stooch
08-22-2009, 01:40 PM
yeah by "hyper realistic cg" i mean cg that just tries to imitate reality. IE most of the stuff we see in films thats matched to plates. its not there as an expression of art for me. its there to be utilized to merely fill. and thus not ALWAYS as creative as making a completely 100% imaginary visual scape.

so for me, i will not judge movies like beowulf, ice age, incredibles, avatar, final fantasy, fallen, etc purely on looks alone.

I WILL, tear into a movie that looks amazing but has a ****** story. For me, they tried to go for realistic/amazing at the expense of their story. at the end of the day, story is the only thing that matters... to me.

lets think about my latest rant on district 9. i got alot of flack on cgtalk with people accusing me that i just like to complain. which is odd, since im praising other movies at the same time.

a picture can have 30 million dollars spent on it. even 200. the more money is spent, the more mindboggling it becomes to me as to how they cant simply hire a writer for a month to proof read the script. seems like a drop in the bucket. Seriously, just some very subtle changes that dont necessarily involve reshoots or redos while at the same time treating your viewer as more than just some retard. better yet. get the damn script right in the first place. i mean alot of the plotholes in d9 are just elementary. im no writer and its obvious to me. im actually far more forgiving than a real writer, so im not exactly setting the bar very high...

Mike_RB
08-22-2009, 03:15 PM
get the damn script right in the first place.

I don't know all the details about this but I know our part with the mech was heavily rewritten after shooting and required reshoots. So it might have been a decision later on that changed things... I also know an entire sub-plot that lends a bit more focus to WHY they were moving them out of d9 and some info about what we humans were doing with the mothership got scrapped as well. Who knows...

Andyjaggy
08-22-2009, 04:36 PM
lol. it looks better than terra for sure. i had a laugh at those comments.

im actually curious to see it. why not.

I dont want hyper realistic cg, if i wanted that - i could watch a real film. I dont get it, why are people so hard on it? Looks like some quality art to me, not easy to pull off just by anyone... The render of the humans is way beyond district 9 in terms of visual complexity. I think alot of people are fooled into thinking that CG is good just because it matches a live plate and has some of that blair witch camera shake... oooooh.. look at me with shaky hands... i just love to smoke crack while filming...


I totally agree. It may not be 100% photoreal but who cares? To me it looks like it has a very stylized look. a rich bold color pallete that by itself tends to not look completely real. most photoreal CGi these days tends to be dark, gray, blurry, grungy, and shakey. This looks like an absolute breath of fresh air to me.

My guess is it is a stylistic choice, and in this case I am fully expecting the story to drive this movie home.

I also love the design of the alien. I am so freaking sick of seeing knarled, slimy, tentacly creepy looking aliens that looks like they were made just for an excuse to use zbrush. These smooth very humanoid like aliens were probably way more challenging in my opinion.

But this movie it totally going to suck. I mean James Cameron must be an idiot, and I have more knowledge then the collective wisdom of the thousands of artists who worked on this movie. I think I'll call it awfulatar, cause I'm so clever and know it's going to totally blow.

Cageman
08-22-2009, 06:58 PM
nope, he said "hyper realistic cg" not "hyperreality" :hey:
for those curious of art, the hyperrealism as an artform can e.g. look like this,
http://www.umassmag.com/Fall_2005/images/983/close_310x310.jpg
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g51/89651/89651_1095243055.jpg

"exaggerating" reality

If someone say hyper realistic CG to me, that does indeed hint towards hyperreal, such as the wikipedia I linked to. If I'm talking about 3D that mimics the world we live in here and now, as in VFX for movies, I will always talk about photorealistic 3D.

The issue is missunderstanding. As, you have noticed, hyperrealistic 3D and photorealistic 3D, isn't nessesarily the same. If hyperrealism is mentioned in the same sententence as photorealism, that indicates that the graphics is "simulating something that doesn't exist" (hyperrealism) and it is done with photorealistic 3D, to match live plates, for example.

Using the word hyper realistic to describe something that is very well done on a photorealistic level, is just going to add to the confusion, really.

:)

Tom Wood
08-22-2009, 07:23 PM
I WILL, tear into a movie that looks amazing but has a ****** story. For me, they tried to go for realistic/amazing at the expense of their story. at the end of the day, story is the only thing that matters... to me.

There's a couple of Hollywood guys that run a decent website about writing movies. You might have heard of them...something about Shrek and Pirates of the...wherever. Here's a column they wrote about how it can go wrong:

http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp47.100.Million.Mistake.html

Stooch
08-22-2009, 07:58 PM
lol there is no misunderstandings unless you want them. i think if anything i have clarified the issue more than it needs to... i hope we are on the same page now. I was in no way interested in a relism vrs hyperrealism debate. i dont think the movie warrants it and arguing about semantics never really gets anyone anywhere.


If someone say hyper realistic CG to me, that does indeed hint towards hyperreal, such as the wikipedia I linked to. If I'm talking about 3D that mimics the world we live in here and now, as in VFX for movies, I will always talk about photorealistic 3D.

The issue is missunderstanding. As, you have noticed, hyperrealistic 3D and photorealistic 3D, isn't nessesarily the same. If hyperrealism is mentioned in the same sententence as photorealism, that indicates that the graphics is "simulating something that doesn't exist" (hyperrealism) and it is done with photorealistic 3D, to match live plates, for example.

Using the word hyper realistic to describe something that is very well done on a photorealistic level, is just going to add to the confusion, really.

:)

Stooch
08-22-2009, 08:10 PM
I don't know all the details about this but I know our part with the mech was heavily rewritten after shooting and required reshoots. So it might have been a decision later on that changed things... I also know an entire sub-plot that lends a bit more focus to WHY they were moving them out of d9 and some info about what we humans were doing with the mothership got scrapped as well. Who knows...

you know, you guys did an excellent job on the mech. but to me it was one of the biggest issues.

i can understand how the aliens could smuggle all these weapons down to earth when they were transported... but a mech? @#[email protected]#%....
let me guess they took it apart, smuggled the pieces in their rectums and then reassembled it? AAAND kept it hidden for 28 years??? really??? they went through all taht trouble to then trade it for some catfood???????????? ALL under the noses of MNU... who supposedly wanted to get their hands on all the weapons??? give me a break...

also why is the mech there? what could they possibly want with a mech on the ground? was it meant to just sit around while they aliens were abused and treated like slaves, only for a HUMAN to finally rock it?? its SUCH a cliche piece... i can only imagine how they came up with it... oooh ooh... WE HAVE TO HAVE A MECH!!!

never mind that the mechs legs bend backwards and there is no way the human inside it would have made it out withot his legs being broken...

never mind the fact that he seemed to have mastered an alien piece of technology with absolutely 0 training... wow. what a contrast to the bumbling fool he was in the beginning of the movie.

also whats up with overhumanizing the mech too? i could have sworn i saw some badly simulated blood dripping out of its mouth as it was being shot... the whole battle sequence with it being taken down with small arms fire was just WTF to me. the movie could have totally done without it. not only that, the movie could have totally done without the nigerian smugglers. totally shallow and uneccessary baddies that ended up stealing character development time from the MNU execs and the marines.

btw the entire shootout sequence in the lab was laughable. seasoned, well trained, crack swat teams being completely dumb, inaccurate, incompetent and being dispatched with no effort... they felt very phony to me... the main swat baddie has got to be the dumbest swat guy i have ever seen in any movie. not once. not twice. but THREE TIMES the douche threatens to kill someone, only to be interrupted because he loves to hear himself talk. his death was the most anticlimactic thing i have ever seen... these incompetent, slave like and peaceful aliens, all of a sudden tear him into pieces...

nothing like the antagonists in the bourne triology. speaking of bourne triology... THAT is some AWESOME action cinematography. believable characters, great choreography, direction and excellent plot. all without using a single mech, aliens or indepenence day cliches.

Cageman
08-22-2009, 10:58 PM
lol there is no misunderstandings unless you want them.

Hyper realistc was the wording you used which does confuse with hyper realism. Even more so, it confuses with Hyper-realistic, such as in hyper-realistic drawings (http://www.moolf.com/amazing/hyper-realistic-pencil-drawings.html). If you mean photoreal, you say that... you don't say hyper realistic, to avoid confusion.

:)



i think if anything i have clarified the issue more than it needs to

Yes, but only after my initial response regarding hyper realism.



... i hope we are on the same page now.

Yep... now we are...

:)

erikals
08-23-2009, 06:37 AM
nah, nitpicking : )

anyway,... saw this trailer?
looks good,..
maybe not too original though,...

"the wolfman"
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/the-wolfman.html

jasonwestmas
08-23-2009, 07:19 AM
nah, nitpicking : )

anyway,... saw this trailer?
looks good,..
maybe not too original though,...

"the wolfman"
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/the-wolfman.html

Thousand and one ways to skin a mythical beast. I'm sure I'll see it and find something good about it.

cresshead
08-23-2009, 10:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py3-YamlBT8

prometheus
08-24-2009, 10:24 AM
aha..so this is avatar, not the wow factor I was expecting, maybe to soon to tell.

I don´t know..but the whole trailer seems like different movies in one..a bad balance of something perhaps.

Did anyone else spot some trees from e-ons vue in there at the beginning?
Could be wrong, Just wondering.

Michael

biliousfrog
08-24-2009, 10:43 AM
A post on CGTalk had this:

I found these comments on YouTube. They seem legit but let's remain sceptical... I Found them there, it's basically a review of Avatar Day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyZ21z5TGYE
Quote:
I've got a buddy working on this and he's said that the security on the footage in-house is ridiculous. No one knows if what they're compositing is going to be used or not, but that there are at least two different versions of each set of rendered footage he's worked on, a "shiny" version and a "matte" version.

The "shiny" version is what we saw on Preview Day, and what he's worked on. He hasn't seen any "matte" footage, but has heard that photorealistic is an understatement.

Quote:
James Cameron is holding back. He said the new renders look stunning from when they started. He also said that no one has seen the new renders yet. The film is holding back big time...
The rumor that the new renders are even better is not false, it comes from this interview with James Cameron: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/her...imcrackery.html

Quote:
And it’s a tribute to how much Weta Digital down in New Zealand has been able to evolve the state of the art beyond their own expectations at the beginning of the film. In fact we’re seeing a difference now between some of the first stuff they turned in a year ago and what we’re getting now. What we’re getting now is actually better.

Quote:
GB: Your reputation is as a perfectionist, does that mean you need to re-do some early stuff?

JC: No I don’t think you’ll ever feel the diminishment as you go through the movie. But we’ll see a scene that was an earlier scene in process and they look great, but a newer stuff is stunning. And that stuff we haven’t even showed anyone yet. We’re just getting it in now. I’m about to head over to a Weta review right now, I’ll probably spend the next four hours in there reviewing stuff, and I look forward to it every day. When we unpack these shots, sometimes our jaws just drop at the verisimilitude to the actors. And that’s what thrills me most. I’m kind of over all the design stuff. That was the first two years. I’m kind of used to that stuff now, the floating mountains and thousand-foot trees. But when I see Sam Worthington captured exactly at a critical-performance moment -- that still gets me.

Mike_RB
08-24-2009, 11:11 AM
I went to see District 9 this weekend. Awesome movie.

Glad you liked it! Looks like d9 did another $19m this weekend for a total of $73m. Not too shabby!

erikals
08-24-2009, 11:34 AM
...aha..so this is avatar, not the wow factor I was expecting, maybe to soon to tell.

I don´t know..but the whole trailer seems like different movies in one..a bad balance of something perhaps...

i agree, that's one of the big problems today using CG... it tends to look different in different scenes...

biliousfrog
08-24-2009, 11:46 AM
i agree, that's one of the big problems today using CG... it tends to look different in different scenes...

Surely that's just badly done CG or badly done compositing? People are responsible for retaining a 'look' or continuity with live action, the same is true of CG surely? If something works in one scene but not another then something is wrong with the way it has been done and someone is responsible, it's not just 'one of those things'.

erikals
08-24-2009, 11:52 AM
yup, i should have said,
the artists tends to make it look different in different scenes... :)

biliousfrog
08-24-2009, 12:03 PM
I guess that's one of the problems with having lots of different people working on the same things, you need good directing and management to ensure that the output is consistent.

Titus
08-24-2009, 12:30 PM
The 15 minute Avatar preview can be deceiving. I can remember all the comments for the preview screening of Final Fantasy: The spirits within, most people liked it... until they saw the complete movie.

cresshead
08-24-2009, 12:38 PM
i think Final Fantasy: The spirits within has been the best cg film so far that's using realistic characters and that's what...8 years old...

my other fav all cgi film with 'humans' in is Vexille

cresshead
08-24-2009, 12:48 PM
have to say i'm quite miffed at 'another forum' locking all talk on avatar...
anyway...back here in newtekland all is happy n good!

Mike_RB
08-24-2009, 10:36 PM
The mech sequences you guys worked on were awesome. It moved very convincingly. Can you say who designed that beast? Is there any info available on this, like the Iron Man suit production details in 3DWorld?

I dunno why, but this particular "vehicle" really interests me. I don't usually feel the need to seek out info on movie effects other than what I casually stumble upon. :)

Neill worked with Greg Broadmore from weta to design it. This guy:
http://www.thebattery.co.nz/

Mike

cresshead
08-25-2009, 02:52 AM
i'm a bit concerned on how many screens will be able to show Avatar in the u.k.....
here we only have 4 Imax screens in the whole country and my closest is 50+ miles away in birmingham...

will it be shown at normal multiplexes with just 3d glasses as well as imax or what?
i'm hopefull that it will otherwise it will be a long expensive trip to watch a movie.

biliousfrog
08-25-2009, 03:34 AM
I assume that it will also be in regular cinemas in 3d and also regular ol' 2d otherwise I can't see it breaking even. The UK actually has a higher percentage of 3d able screens per person than the US so it would be a pretty bad marketing decision to make it 3d only let alone 3d imax only...which is why the whole '3d' thing is really just the frosting on top as only a fraction of the population will be able to see it in that format. It certainly shouldn't be seen as anything more than a gimmick at this stage, the film still needs to work on regular screens as well as on DVD.

If I do watch it at the cinema I'm not sure whether I'd want to see the 3d version or not purely because I wear glasses. I've got contacts but they get uncomfortable at the cinema or on the computer because I forget to blink. I don't want to wear two pairs of glasses for 90+ minutes, it would be extremely uncomfortable to say the least.

BTW 30% of Americans are short sighted, that's a lot of people that might also be put off from watching a 3d film because of the glasses.

cresshead
08-25-2009, 03:42 AM
yeah i'm surposed to wear glasses..[lazy eye] though i can't find the opticians!
ditched my national health glasses back in 1979 when i left school...enough of 'joe 90' already!

Teruchan
08-25-2009, 05:54 AM
hehehe The Last Airbender trailer looks pretty cool in itself, but I can't imagine why so many are down on Cameron's Avatar trailer. This is the coolest stuff I have seen in ages.

erikals
08-25-2009, 06:14 AM
they should have 3dglasses with built in + or - value, so short/farsighted could use these

cresshead
08-25-2009, 06:22 AM
as a follow up...where's the best place to sit in the cinema for the optimum 3d 'view'?

biliousfrog
08-25-2009, 06:30 AM
they should have 3dglasses with built in + or - value, so short/farsighted could use these

It's not that easy unfortunately otherwise lots of things would have that option. Also consider how uncomfortable it would be to wear some nightvision style goggles, you thought that regular glasses were bad!

I actually started a thread on CGTalk about the whole stereo film/wearing glasses thing because I can't see the technology taking off as long as a large proportion of the worlds population are required to feel uncomfortable throughout the entire experience. Apparently the effect is less effective in some instances too because the 3d glasses can't sit properly.

erikals
08-25-2009, 06:52 AM
an interesting thing, on a Norwegian site i just read that there are glasses-free options to watching 3D movies in a cinema, but the only thing i found out was that it used a silverscreen to make it possible,..
has anyone heard of this? anyone seen it?

Titus
08-25-2009, 08:31 AM
have to say i'm quite miffed at 'another forum' locking all talk on avatar...
anyway...back here in newtekland all is happy n good!

Yeah, they are very nervous of people commenting about Delgo... er, Avatar :D.

Titus
08-25-2009, 08:35 AM
as a follow up...where's the best place to sit in the cinema for the optimum 3d 'view'?

I understand that depends on the parallax of the movie.

tyrot
08-25-2009, 08:43 AM
dear neverko,

I do wonder what is the technical reason behind the fact that artifacts on SPECIAL EFFECTS are so visible in computer screen or TVs although looks so OK on silverscreen . Sometimes i cannot even watch a movie on bluray or Dvd because of this fact.. but what is the reason for it.

Best

biliousfrog
08-25-2009, 10:06 AM
Dear tyrot,

I have often thought this but never commented.

Your replies are always worded so politely, no matter what your response is or what the subject matter is, I always smile when I read your posts because they are structured so nicely.

I suspect that some of the reason for this is because English is not your native language so the wording can sometimes be quite simple but they are also very formal and polite, almost like a letter.

Regards,

Steve :)

JML
08-25-2009, 10:26 AM
you two should get a room.... :D

cresshead
08-25-2009, 10:44 AM
Dear tyrot,

I have often thought this but never commented.

Your replies are always worded so politely, no matter what your response is or what the subject matter is, I always smile when I read your posts because they are structured so nicely.

I suspect that some of the reason for this is because English is not your native language so the wording can sometimes be quite simple but they are also very formal and polite, almost like a letter.

Regards,

Steve :)

yeah like wot eh sez in it?
yo combacks are chill bro , no wot im sayin
hitting the steet for some pick ups and a pizza
l8r

biliousfrog
08-25-2009, 10:55 AM
you two should get a room.... :D

:neener:

shrox
08-25-2009, 11:27 AM
you two should get a room.... :D

Just model one...

JML
08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
Just model one...
what does that mean ?

AdamAvenali
08-25-2009, 12:42 PM
yeah like wot eh sez in it?
yo combacks are chill bro , no wot im sayin
hitting the steet for some pick ups and a pizza
l8r

fo sho :thumbsup:

cresshead
08-26-2009, 02:45 AM
one intersting point that the totally rad show brought up this week between district 9 and avatar is that distirct 9 could be the end of an era and shows the best grungy, dirty, hand held documentry style shooting of a film which is the best fake reaility tv type film,

whereas avatar is going for a lush, beutiful, vivid colored style with nice framed shots and not trying to tell the viewer all the time he/she is looking thru a camera but instead they [the audience] are a witness to the events on the screen and the 3d helps draw them into it

rather than being a disconected 'armchair veiwer' in district 9/cloverfield/reailty tv.

biliousfrog
08-26-2009, 05:09 AM
Hey Cresshead, have some punctuation....................................... ................

:D

erikals
08-26-2009, 05:22 AM
the amazing thing is that it worked without punctuation :)
that is ONE sentence you see there ladies and gentlemen... :D

cresshead
08-26-2009, 05:29 AM
Hey Cresshead, have some punctuation....................................... ................

:D


yeah the postman just delivered some line returns...:hey:

dvfx
08-26-2009, 06:42 PM
wow, some much 'dislike' for this film from people!...
james cameron make's iconic long lasting stories in film.

he had the same non belief in the film's pre prod and trailer from people on titanic...
and that became THE biggest grossing film in the history of cinema...

get ready to eat a huge chunk of humble pie...


Agreed!

He's a badass and deserves respect...hell he used to own Digital Domain not to mention helmed some of the best vfx utilizing films ever.

CC Rider
08-27-2009, 02:29 PM
I know nothing about this film, but looking at the trailer, it appears that Sam Worthington is in a wheelchair and they transfer his brain into the alien body (you have the techie looking at the hologram of someone's brain, then the shot of the alien saying "this is cool"... looks to be perhaps Sam Worthington, post mind meld or whatever in his new alien body...)

am I interpreting that right?
We don't see Sam for the rest of the trailer after that shot, so I figured he must be in the alien...

Looks pretty cool to me...

:thumbsup:

Teruchan
08-29-2009, 04:36 AM
I know nothing about this film, but looking at the trailer, it appears that Sam Worthington is in a wheelchair and they transfer his brain into the alien body (you have the techie looking at the hologram of someone's brain, then the shot of the alien saying "this is cool"... looks to be perhaps Sam Worthington, post mind meld or whatever in his new alien body...)

am I interpreting that right?
We don't see Sam for the rest of the trailer after that shot, so I figured he must be in the alien...

Looks pretty cool to me...

:thumbsup:

I've only seen the same trailer as everyone else, but that's my take on it too. I guess that's where the "Avatar" concept comes it. He gets to be a different character kinda like in an online role playing game. ;)

Tom Wood
08-29-2009, 06:51 AM
I know nothing about this film, but looking at the trailer, it appears that Sam Worthington is in a wheelchair and they transfer his brain into the alien body (you have the techie looking at the hologram of someone's brain, then the shot of the alien saying "this is cool"... looks to be perhaps Sam Worthington, post mind meld or whatever in his new alien body...)

am I interpreting that right?
We don't see Sam for the rest of the trailer after that shot, so I figured he must be in the alien...

Looks pretty cool to me...

:thumbsup:

Spoiler:

Yes, that's the setup. In the script that was online a while back there was a fatal flaw. Once Worthington 'goes native' and joins the other side in his alien body, it was never explained why the lab guys didn't just pull the plug on him laying there on the table. If they trot out some lame contrivance as to why they can't, it's gonna stink.

pooby
08-29-2009, 08:22 AM
If they trot out some lame contrivance as to why they can't, it's gonna stink.

Oh don't be so ridiculous. Its a story, nothing more nothing less. You can pick holes in anything, but if that really is enough to ruin your enjoyment of it then, well thats a real shame for you.
Its not clever to go searching for things to deliberately ruin your own fun. Its entertainment. Nothing more nothing less.
I'm sure theres still a few things that will be worth seeing in it, even though you might consider it Fatally flawed.
Although I'd hardly call it a 'fatal flaw' except for those types who like to go through blueprints of the Starship enterprise to see if there's any reason why the ship wouldnt fly in space.

Tom Wood
08-29-2009, 09:14 AM
Heh, maybe 'fatal flaw' isn't the phrase. I'll accept whatever they come up with in order to enjoy the ride in the moment. But the story was written pre-Matrix and Matrix was able to use the similar situation to create a great double-jeopardy.

Mr Rid
09-02-2009, 10:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=channel_page

radams
09-02-2009, 10:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg&feature=channel_page

Wow Mr. Rid...

That was ... nasty.
Someone out there really dislikes...Cameron..and this movie Big time.

and to parity with Hitler in the bunker...

I can just imagine all the suites trying to figure out what to do...now that the trailer got such disappointed reviews, etc....

but then most of the Hollywood accounts and studio heads are dictators or yes men any way right :)...(said with humor & sarcasim)

Cheers,

Mr Rid
09-02-2009, 10:51 PM
Wow Mr. Rid...

That was ... nasty.
Someone out there really dislikes...Cameron..and this movie Big time.

and to parity with Hitler in the bunker...

Cheers,

Its not quite that pointed. That clip is used for countless YT comments on whatever is topical.

Hitler finds out Michael Jackson has died
Hitler reviews Transformers
Hitler gets banned from Xbox Live
Hitler's mad about Terrell Owens in Buffalo
...

jin choung
09-02-2009, 11:45 PM
this was said in the transformers 2 thread as well but - PLOT HOLES are not good.

there's NO REASON for them.

it represents a simple laziness in the writing. and the difference between a big sloppy movie and a tight one has a lot to do with how much rigor went into squashing plot holes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"suspension of disbelief" is a description of what happens. NOT an excuse.

every movie can (and invariably, MUST) set its own rules. but once those rules are set, they CANNOT be departed from. doing so makes the movie LAME.

star wars and the force are huuuuuuuuuuuge transgressors - size matters not and yet yoda can't hold onto a freakin' ledge? jedi zip around like blurs in reel 1 and then obiwan can't run fast enough to get past those energy doors to save quigon?

jin

Kuzey
09-03-2009, 01:04 AM
Ha ha...didn't James Cameron copy the idea for the liquid terminator from someone in New Zealand, there was a law suit...I believe.

Kuzey

Mr Rid
09-03-2009, 01:15 AM
Mmm, looking at the trailer for Delgo I really dont see that much similarity beyond cutesy CG characters with flat noses and stripes.

"The 7 Eeriest(?) Parallels Between Avatar and Delgo..."
http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/the-7-eeriest-parallels-between-avatar-and-delgo.php

The only not-eerie-at-all-really parallel is the floating rock world.

But,
'heroic male lead sprinting thru woods in a foreign land'... Apocalypto?
'tough but emotional female leads' ... every damn movie?
'big, scary, fanged monsters'... every movie with a big, scary,fanged monster?
'alien warriors battle cries'... now I never saw any alien warriors crying.
'undying quest for love' ... sue every book, song and TV show while you're at it?
'winged reptiles' ... I think all of the above fits most of the Star Wars prequels. I could be wrong since I am trying to not remember them.

I imagine the Delgo producers are enjoying the spotlight suddenly swung over their little render that no one saw (grossed $915,000). Good luck suing the producer of Titanic ($1,200,000,000) over flat noses.

Mr Rid
09-03-2009, 01:43 AM
76844

Andyjaggy
09-03-2009, 09:11 AM
76844

You mean no ones ideas are completely original!!!!! I'm totally shocked, I can't believe it.

aidenvfx
09-03-2009, 09:35 AM
one intersting point that the totally rad show brought up this week between district 9 and avatar is that distirct 9 could be the end of an era and shows the best grungy, dirty, hand held documentry style shooting of a film which is the best fake reaility tv type film,

whereas avatar is going for a lush, beutiful, vivid colored style with nice framed shots and not trying to tell the viewer all the time he/she is looking thru a camera but instead they [the audience] are a witness to the events on the screen and the 3d helps draw them into it

rather than being a disconected 'armchair veiwer' in district 9/cloverfield/reailty tv.

Sure if every movie now gets a budget of $240 million then that might happen.

But since that is not going to happen I don't think handheld is going away anytime soon

Kuzey
09-03-2009, 12:44 PM
Mmm, looking at the trailer for Delgo I really dont see that much similarity beyond cutesy CG characters with flat noses and stripes.

"The 7 Eeriest(?) Parallels Between Avatar and Delgo..."
http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/the-7-eeriest-parallels-between-avatar-and-delgo.php

The only not-eerie-at-all-really parallel is the floating rock world.

But,
'heroic male lead sprinting thru woods in a foreign land'... Apocalypto?
'tough but emotional female leads' ... every damn movie?
'big, scary, fanged monsters'... every movie with a big, scary,fanged monster?
'alien warriors battle cries'... now I never saw any alien warriors crying.
'undying quest for love' ... sue every book, song and TV show while you're at it?
'winged reptiles' ... I think all of the above fits most of the Star Wars prequels. I could be wrong since I am trying to not remember them.



That might be true....but where can you see all 7 similarities in the one movie....just saying :D

Actually, both look like a remake on Pocahontas....to me :hey:

Kuzey

Mr Rid
09-03-2009, 08:15 PM
That might be true....but where can you see all 7 similarities in the one movie....just saying :D
Kuzey

But those are hardly grounds for legal action, or even pointing fingers. I imagine the stories are very different, or as different as Hollywood movies can manage since they all use the same plot formula. But I have noticed a phenomenon where several movies may come out around the same time with similar concepts that have nothing to do with anyone copying each other. There is just a common collective pool out there where ideas and influences bubble up from at the same point in time. Its like when Alexander Bell beat Elisha Gray to the patent office by just hours with the invention of the phone, and other inventors were very close to flight when the Wright brothers finally managed to get it up. I remember a slew of baseball movies coming out in the late 80s, and a number of underwater creature movies around the time of the Abyss. A friend and myself began writing a script in 1983 that was very similar to Robocop ('87), except the mafia financed the borgs instead of a corporation.

Of the 7 eerie parallels, I think the floating rocks are the only design specific enough to warrant a raised eyebrow. Star Wars is so eerily similar to Forbidden Planet because they both have spaceships, helpful robots, alien desert worlds, sassy femmes, blasters, a mysterious force, futuristic tables, rocks, people talking...

But a much stronger case could be made for the similarities between Dark City and the Matrix where no one really seemed to notice.

Both have distinct religious overtones, featuring a 'chosen one' who discovers he is living in an oppressed virtual world designed to resemble a past Earth, generated by some unfathomable machine, where humans have been unknowingly enslaved and injected with false identities, and Neo/Murdoch encounters a mentor Morpheus/Dr Schreber who has been searching for an evolutionary anomaly and they give the chosen one a pill/injection so they can see the truth and develope their inner ability to manipulate virtual matter to stop the bad guys and save the world.

In both cases, the hero first awakens (is reborn) in a tub of liquid, and they both sport dark trenchcoats. A sultry brunette is on hand to ground both heroes emotionally, and an army of pale, mysterious men-in-black called 'Agents/Strangers' threatens with supernatural powers, matching outfits, and generic names like 'Mr Hand/Agent Smith', who control the humans they are in turn reliant upon to survive.

An agent tries to penetrate Morpheus memories, and also absorbs humans (and Neo) in order to pose as one, while a Stranger absorbs Murdoch's memories in order to pose/function as a human. And theres a big showdown between the chosen one and a persistent agent/stranger (involving flying over a city if you count the last Matrix).

A side character, Cypher/Dr Walenski who also discovers the virtual truth, can not handle it and goes psycho- one kills his friends, the other kills prostitutes, then himself.

Ågrén
09-03-2009, 08:43 PM
You mean no ones ideas are completely original!!!!! I'm totally shocked, I can't believe it.

The thing is that, if you base something on collectively foreign/obscure mental processess, people might not understand what you are doing.

It's not that there are not original ideas. I can come up with endless amounts continously: stinky-jelly-smokes-cigarettes-with-remote-lungs...

^Had to base that one on collectively understandable language.

Production artists rarely have time or guts to be original. The schedules are ridiculous if we talk about creativity.

Have to keep in mind that art never stops evolving. New ideas create new ideas. People who are not creative say that there are no new ideas.

And btw, Syd Mead was/is one them true pioneers. He's the grandmaster of mechanical beauty.

Mr Rid
09-03-2009, 08:51 PM
[QUOTE=Ågrén;922202]T...
Production artists rarely have time or guts to be original. The schedules are ridiculous if we talk about creativity..../QUOTE]

Yes, the Hollywood machine is much about shortcuts and hacks since it is so fueled by profit based schedules. Its obvious McQuarrie was blatantly hacking concepts for Star Wars, probably assuming the movie would never amount to a hill of beans.

Tom Wood
09-03-2009, 09:03 PM
If it's done well there's nothing wrong with retelling the hero's journey. I stumbled across this site that compares the hero's journey in Star Wars and in The Matrix:

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/myth.html

jasonwestmas
09-03-2009, 09:24 PM
If it's done well there's nothing wrong with retelling the hero's journey. I stumbled across this site that compares the hero's journey in Star Wars and in The Matrix:

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/myth.html

Nothing wrong with retelling the story, there are great stories but the directing and visual concepts within a picture can still be dull regardless.

shrox
09-03-2009, 09:30 PM
I have an original idea for a movie. It's about a jukebox that kills people with Gary Glitter songs.

danielkaiser
09-03-2009, 09:47 PM
Apparently the creators of Delgo are considering potential lawsuits against the creators of Avatar - considering the incredible similarities. I haven't seen Delgo, but I've heard that it IS very similar. Has Delgo been put out on DVD?

Wouldn't be the first time, he was sued over Terminator by Harlan Ellison for two of his Outer Limits episodes.

pooby
09-04-2009, 02:07 AM
this was said in the transformers 2 thread as well but - PLOT HOLES are not good.

there's NO REASON for them.

it represents a simple laziness in the writing. and the difference between a big sloppy movie and a tight one has a lot to do with how much rigor went into squashing plot holes.


Well, Alfred Hitchcock and myself, take a slightly different view.

As long as a hole is camouflaged well enough so you don't notice whilst its playing then you get away with it.
Of course its best to Fix holes, but if you're making a film dealing with far out concepts like Time travel or Mind swapping etc and its a fantasy, then you are bound to have geeky types who love to try and pull the curtain away. You have to weigh that up against the tedious exposition scenes you'd have to put in to define your rules and explain the reasons behind your science and why people can't break the rules. But the more you take this seriously in your film, the more seductive the challenge becomes to find the hole. (and with fantasy, there are always holes)
Sometimes, a 'lame' excuse is the most economic way of getting on with the story.


the difference between a big sloppy movie and a tight one has a lot to do with how much rigor went into squashing plot holes.

I would say this is minor in comparison to the general sloppy mistake of not spending long enough on genuinely observed human drama to make the scenes where your characters are in danger, work on anything except a visual level.

Some film-makers do the equivalent of making a rollercoaster that is one big Drop, not realising that its the cranking up part that is where the real suspense lies.

Kuzey
09-04-2009, 06:45 AM
But those are hardly grounds for legal action, or even pointing fingers. I imagine the stories are very different, or as different as Hollywood movies can manage since they all use the same plot formula. But I have noticed a phenomenon where several movies may come out around the same time with similar concepts that have nothing to do with anyone copying each other. There is just a common collective pool out there where ideas and influences bubble up from at the same point in time.

Sure, it might not be grounds for legal action but then again...if they have all those "7 eerie parallels" or more running about the same length and in the same order in the film, then people will think there might be the possibility of fowl play. The film isn't out to be certain but they both look like a remake of Pocahontas anyway...nothing to get excited about.



Of the 7 eerie parallels, I think the floating rocks are the only design specific enough to warrant a raised eyebrow. Star Wars is so eerily similar to Forbidden Planet because they both have spaceships, helpful robots, alien desert worlds, sassy femmes, blasters, a mysterious force, futuristic tables, rocks, people talking...

But a much stronger case could be made for the similarities between Dark City and the Matrix where no one really seemed to notice.

Both have distinct religious overtones, featuring a 'chosen one' who discovers he is living in an oppressed virtual world designed to resemble a past Earth, generated by some unfathomable machine, where humans have been unknowingly enslaved and injected with false identities, and Neo/Murdoch encounters a mentor Morpheus/Dr Schreber who has been searching for an evolutionary anomaly and they give the chosen one a pill/injection so they can see the truth and develope their inner ability to manipulate virtual matter to stop the bad guys and save the world.

In both cases, the hero first awakens (is reborn) in a tub of liquid, and they both sport dark trenchcoats. A sultry brunette is on hand to ground both heroes emotionally, and an army of pale, mysterious men-in-black called 'Agents/Strangers' threatens with supernatural powers, matching outfits, and generic names like 'Mr Hand/Agent Smith', who control the humans they are in turn reliant upon to survive.

An agent tries to penetrate Morpheus memories, and also absorbs humans (and Neo) in order to pose as one, while a Stranger absorbs Murdoch's memories in order to pose/function as a human. And theres a big showdown between the chosen one and a persistent agent/stranger (involving flying over a city if you count the last Matrix).

A side character, Cypher/Dr Walenski who also discovers the virtual truth, can not handle it and goes psycho- one kills his friends, the other kills prostitutes, then himself.

I'm not saying they are similar because they have the same elements like spaceships and what not. I'm saying Avatar could be a copy because the visual elements and the story seems to be so similar. The similarities are there at this point of time...which is way to early to judge but interesting just the same.

Dark City and the Matrix might seem similar on paper but they are completely different films. I liked them both and I'm sure the Matrix film was heavily influenced/inspired by Dark City. However...I never noticed any shots/scenes that seemed to be directly copied from it.

In the end...I'd rather sleep at home then fall asleep trying to watch Avatar on the big screen :hey:

Kuzey

erikals
09-04-2009, 11:22 AM
interesting,...

i have a design of a robot, and it looks quite original,
now, the problem is, the more original it is, the more of a chance it will have to look to be a rip-off...

my point, take Mickey Mouse as an example,
somewhere on earth, a Chinese fella that never has seen Mr. Mickey, will make an identical copy, now, is that infringement of a copyright?...

it shouldn't be imo, but yet it is...

"it is inevitable Mr. Anderson"...

danielkaiser
09-04-2009, 01:07 PM
interesting,...

i have a design of a robot, and it looks quite original,
now, the problem is, the more original it is, the more of a chance it will have to look to be a rip-off...

my point, take Mickey Mouse as an example,
somewhere on earth, a Chinese fella that never has seen Mr. Mickey, will make an identical copy, now, is that infringement of a copyright?...

it shouldn't be imo, but yet it is...

"it is inevitable Mr. Anderson"...

And a infinite number of chimpanzees with typewriters will eventually work out the complete works of Shakespeare.

I have thumbs, why am I not captain of this star-ship.

erikals
09-04-2009, 01:56 PM
no, you are missing the point...
if you are not the first to invent something you are pretty much scre**

Kuzey
09-04-2009, 02:45 PM
my point, take Mickey Mouse as an example,
somewhere on earth, a Chinese fella that never has seen Mr. Mickey, will make an identical copy, now, is that infringement of a copyright?...


Sure, if both Mickey Mouse versions were created at the very same time.. then it would be ok. I guess they'll have to share copyrights or make some kind of deal. Also, don't forget that Mickey Mouse products have been produced in China for years...so it would be hard to find anybody today that doesn't know about Mickey Mouse :D


Kuzey

prometheus
09-04-2009, 03:26 PM
no, you are missing the point...
if you are not the first to invent something you are pretty much scre**

Darn it..I thought I could invent the wheel a second time around:)

Michael

erikals
09-04-2009, 03:48 PM
well, that's just the thing, ppl did...

and also, did you know that they changed the law so that Disney should still be able to copyright Mickey.
after so-so many years the copyright expires, but they changed the law.

jin choung
09-04-2009, 04:02 PM
Of course its best to Fix holes, but if you're making a film dealing with far out concepts like Time travel or Mind swapping etc and its a fantasy, then you are bound to have geeky types who love to try and pull the curtain away. You have to weigh that up against the tedious exposition scenes you'd have to put in to define your rules and explain the reasons behind your science and why people can't break the rules.

time travel or fantasy is not a valid excuse.

no one's trying to punch holes in the story because "magic can't exist".

no one is trying to pull apart the rules of a specific fantasy or sci fi movie based on REALITY.

but if in your world with the rules YOU established, an all powerful and all knowing wizard gets ambushed by a monkey.... WTF?! and viewers would be RIGHT to cry foul.

i don't remember hitchcock ever advocating for plot holes.... he endorsed the macguffin but that is not essentially a plot hole - it is a DEVICE and can be as unspecific as necessary.

BUT

if you start detailing the workings of the macguffin, you run right smack into the fact that the rules you establish, you must play by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, NOTHING that i am saying demands long explication.

BIG PLOT HOLE: obiwan and quigon zip around like speedy gonazlez in reel 1 of episode1. later, obiwan can't run fast enough to beat a cycling door to save quigon!

SIMPLE SOLUTION: obiwan is terribly injured and can't run no matter how hard he tries.

no exposition. no rules explication. rules were simply established and rules were played by.

i'm talking simple due diligence by the writing staff. and these kinds of imperatives were probably more important back in the day when there wasn't a media/content explosion with hundreds of thousands of movies and channels available at a breath. where people actually had time and space to view movies or books multiple times and REALLY pick it apart - and when new stuff wasn't coming down the pike a baker's dozen by the second.

i'm saying nothing more controversial than "you shouldn't leave a sour note in a song recording" or "you shouldn't leave the ungamma corrected composite element remain in the shot"... and especially when in the writing, all you really need is ink and logic, there REALLY is no excuse.

jin

Tom Wood
09-04-2009, 04:09 PM
Dark City and the Matrix might seem similar on paper but they are completely different films. I liked them both and I'm sure the Matrix film was heavily influenced/inspired by Dark City.

Bound: 1996
Dark City: 1998
The Matrix: 1999

The Wachowski's shot Bound to prove they were ready to shoot Matrix, which was already well along in concept at the time. They had to be well through production of Matrix in 1998 to release in 1999. Given that timeline I can't see where Dark City could have much influence.

jin choung
09-04-2009, 04:16 PM
Bound: 1996
Dark City: 1998
The Matrix: 1999

The Wachowski's shot Bound to prove they were ready to shoot Matrix, which was already well along in concept at the time. They had to be well through production of Matrix in 1998 to release in 1999. Given that timeline I can't see where Dark City could have much influence.

yeah but then they were sued by someone else who claimed they stole her ideas for the first film. and considering how lacking the second and third movies turned out to be... i'm inclined to believe it.

jin

Tom Wood
09-04-2009, 04:34 PM
The basic concept was used in Snow Crash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash) 1992 and, to some extent, in Neuromancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer) 1984. There are probably many other less well known examples that pre-ceded Matrix, and possibly pre-ceded those novels as well.

Kuzey
09-05-2009, 06:12 AM
Bound: 1996
Dark City: 1998
The Matrix: 1999

The Wachowski's shot Bound to prove they were ready to shoot Matrix, which was already well along in concept at the time. They had to be well through production of Matrix in 1998 to release in 1999. Given that timeline I can't see where Dark City could have much influence.

I don't remember Bound being a sci-fi film. Still, without knowing the timeline of Dark City, from concept to full production..it's hard to come to a conclusion. Dark City seemed to be an independent production, in which case the concept...yet alone raising the money to film could have taken years.

By the way, both films were shot in Australia if I'm not mistaken. So those who worked on Dark City might have worked on Matrix.


Kuzey

pooby
09-05-2009, 06:43 AM
time travel or fantasy is not a valid excuse.

no one's trying to punch holes in the story because "magic can't exist".

no one is trying to pull apart the rules of a specific fantasy or sci fi movie based on REALITY.

but if in your world with the rules YOU established, an all powerful and all knowing wizard gets ambushed by a monkey.... WTF?! and viewers would be RIGHT to cry foul.

i don't remember hitchcock ever advocating for plot holes.... he endorsed the macguffin but that is not essentially a plot hole - it is a DEVICE and can be as unspecific as necessary.


I didn't bring up Time travel as anything to do with an excuse, its simply an area which is prone to Logic mishaps and inconsistencies or 'Plot holes'. What I am saying that whatever excuse the filmmaker gives for why they can't just go back a bit earlier in time and fix whatever disaster from happening. HAS to be enough for you to think 'OK fair enough' And its probably going to be 'lame' if you scrutinise it.

Macguffins aside, which are a totally different thing. (For those that don't know, its the THING that certain people are after in the tale, which might be government secrets or an artifact etc. Its reason for being there is just to give the characters motive and the audience doesn't necessarily need to know what those secrets actually are.)
Hitchcock didn't go out to make Plot holes of course. but neither did he let logic get in the way of a good tale. In the interviews with Truffault, there are moments when Truffault questions Hitchcock why a certain character couldn't have just done something else in the film and saved the whole trouble in the first reel. The point was that if he did that then you wouldn't have had a story.
As long as its not glaringly obvious while you're watching it, then job done.
But that, of course, is somewhat subjective. Some people have a keener eye for holes than others.

Tom Wood
09-05-2009, 09:34 AM
I don't remember Bound being a sci-fi film.

It isn't, but they talked about Matrix a lot while shooting Bound, according to recollections of people who were there. I was just showing the timeline back to at least 1996 for concept, which pre-dates Dark City.

Regarding 'lame' plot holes... A gaping plot hole works as the most efficient way to get to the setup if it's done as a single big leap early in the story. Make the leap, establish the rules, then live within them. Perfectly acceptable. Just don't dribble out new rules along the way to make the plot work.

I'm going to bet a dollar that the reason they don't unplug Worthington in Avatar is because a female lab assistant is going to protect him in the lab, while the female alien is protecting him in the wild. Two females vying for the love of one male. Does he go for brains or wild? At least it's motivated.

cresshead
09-05-2009, 09:49 AM
Avatar will be a massive HIT. i'll even buy my own humble pie as i'm sure i'll not need to eat ANY of it.

jin choung
09-05-2009, 11:04 AM
Avatar will be a massive HIT. i'll even buy my own humble pie as i'm sure i'll not need to eat ANY of it.

I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that it will be a hit.

Episode1 was a hit.

That doesn't make it a good or logical movie.

Jin

cresshead
09-05-2009, 11:19 AM
I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that it will be a hit.

Episode1 was a hit.

That doesn't make it a good or logical movie.

Jin

120 seconds does not make a good basis to pre judge a feature film either does it?

i'd sooner pre judge it upon the track record of the director/writer [if i HAD to pre judge it...] not 120 seconds of non finaled shots edited out of context for a teaser trailer in the wrong format [non stereoscopic]:lol:

get some balance otherwise people are just silly to read their extrapolated critical review of a film they have yet to see at all.

....yeah i'm not blown away with the trailer...but then i'm not buying a ticket to a 'trailer' am i?...i'd prefer a 'tease' th an laying out the whole deal a to b fashion like some studios do.

some feature tailers show you so much there's no point in seeing the film at all...this trailer is just a 'tease'..how anyone can extract a full critique for good or bad is just a flight of fancy...put your feet back on the ground.

jin choung
09-05-2009, 11:20 AM
As long as its not glaringly obvious while you're watching it, then job done.
But that, of course, is somewhat subjective.

Yah - that is pretty subjective. But so is an eye for vfx. In my mind it's the same thing as leaving a bad fx shot or element on a movie because "most people won't notice."

It happens and most people might not notice... But again it can be the difference between a good movie and a great one.

And again, my contention is that plot holes need not be hard to fill or take much time. Someone just has to exercise due diligence to look out for them.

Even with Hitchcock, probably every incident of "why didn't x just do y to avoid z" could have been addressed In the movie in the space of a few seconds of dialog.

Because it's so easy to deal with once one is cognizant of the hole, because they are so easily addressable - that is why I'm so strident about their eradication. To not do so is just laziness and sloppiness IMO and there is no reason whatsoever to excuse their existence.

Jin

jin choung
09-05-2009, 11:35 AM
120 seconds does not make a good basis to pre judge a feature film either does it?


Well that's the only basis we have to go on and that's why we're having this thread right ?

I'm not saying it WILL be bad or that it won't be a hit. But by the trailer I'm dubious - when I was looking forward to being blown away. And wouldn't you know, I'm not the ype to give things the benefit of the doubt.... : )

And I saw the trailer in stereo recently at an IMAX 3d movie... And I gotta say, I wasn't blown away. I wanted avatar to be steroscopic cinema's saving grace but nothing about it was distinguishably better than other recent efforts.

And I've read some reactions to the 20 minute reel some folks got to see and peeps are demurring from awesomeness of the stereo and instead talking more about the performance capture aspects.

Anyhoo, I wanted to be a believer - I wanted avatar to be the second coming - but I'm just not seeing it.

Jin

cresshead
09-05-2009, 12:02 PM
Well that's the only basis we have to go on and that's why we're having this thread right ?

I'm not saying it WILL be bad or that it won't be a hit. But by the trailer I'm dubious - when I was looking forward to being blown away. And wouldn't you know, I'm not the ype to give things the benefit of the doubt.... : )

And I saw the trailer in stereo recently at an IMAX 3d movie... And I gotta say, I wasn't blown away. I wanted avatar to be steroscopic cinema's saving grace but nothing about it was distinguishably better than other recent efforts.

And I've read some reactions to the 20 minute reel some folks got to see and peeps are demurring from awesomeness of the stereo and instead talking more about the performance capture aspects.

Anyhoo, I wanted to be a believer - I wanted avatar to be the second coming - but I'm just not seeing it.

Jin



when i saw the aliens trailer in the cinema n the u.k. [not the re hackked/edited you tube trailers for dvd/tv] we had no dialoge sections...just sound fx and a tunnel chase seq...no idea about the film or who was in it...

when i saw the T2 trailers in the cinema in the u.k. they were the letters T2 being stamped out of metal...no arnie..nothing...just the metalic sound track and the letters being stamped out.

from these i had no idea what the film was about..they were a proper teaser trailer's in my eyes..

i'd say this...the avatar teaser isn't brilliant and for me personally show's far too much and has pandered too much to typical 'trailer trash'...
though i still maintain that it looks interesting..and much better when playing track 8 from imogen heap's new album over it [try it]

if anything i think the trailer suffers from a poor proxy sound track 'as is' more than anything else.

sound is VERY important more so than a 3d visual effect..this teaser could have had a custom score created for it and would have prospered much better it think from it i believe but...i also think they are focussed on the actual film production moreso than a trailer...the STUDIO may have required a teaser and it may have been rushed out.

all i can critique is the trailer NOT the film...i've not seen the film...no one here has yet.

danielkaiser
09-05-2009, 02:54 PM
no one's trying to punch holes in the story because "magic can't exist".



Yes I do.




no one is trying to pull apart the rules of a specific fantasy or sci fi movie based on REALITY.

jin

Yes I do.

The best Science Fiction has a base rooted in reality, be it the Psychological component of Dark City or the Pathological and Environmental components in The Children of Men.

Once you build a foundation on reality the minor flaws can be overlooked.

"Heisenberg might have slept here."

jin choung
09-05-2009, 03:38 PM
Yes I do.

no you don't.

you allow for the fact that suddenly no one can have children. such a simultaneous world wide event is literally the stuff of fantasy that has no real world precedent in any animal domain.

in dark city, a noseferatu dude waves his hand and people fall asleep. that is the stuff of fantasy that can't happen in the real world.

we (including you) don't hold the movie to the rules of OUR reality. as long as they establish THEIRS and stay consistent, we're in.

jin

jin choung
09-05-2009, 03:46 PM
when i saw the aliens trailer in the cinema n the u.k. [not the re hackked/edited you tube trailers for dvd/tv] we had no dialoge sections...just sound fx and a tunnel chase seq...no idea about the film or who was in it...

when i saw the T2 trailers in the cinema in the u.k. they were the letters T2 being stamped out of metal...no arnie..nothing...just the metalic sound track and the letters being stamped out.

from these i had no idea what the film was about..they were a proper teaser trailer's in my eyes.

right.

and you can't judge the prospects of a movie based on stamped metal letters.

but you CAN judge the prospects of a movie when the trailer is more than a "teaser". there is a difference between a teaser (motion detector sound fx and glowing green letters that for 'aliens' and t2 letters) and a regular trailer - and avatar's IS a regular trailer that shows a lot of the movie.

another thing - a trailer is SUPPOSED TO PREDISPOSE YOU TO SEE THE MOVIE.

it's SUPPOSED to do the very thing you say is not valid (!!!) - to judge a movie before you see it - to be SOLD on the movie before you've seen it such that you end up plopping down your $15 to see it.

in this case, for some of us, it has BACKFIRED.

that is a JUST AS VALID as garnering the intended effect.

it worked on you. you're inclined to believe that avatar will be good. great.

didn't work on me. and that's equally (every bit) as valid.

jin

Mr Rid
09-05-2009, 04:31 PM
Bound: 1996
Dark City: 1998
The Matrix: 1999

The Wachowski's shot Bound to prove they were ready to shoot Matrix, which was already well along in concept at the time. They had to be well through production of Matrix in 1998 to release in 1999. Given that timeline I can't see where Dark City could have much influence.

Alex Proyas first wrote the story of Dark City in 1991.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_City_(1998_film)

I worked at Unified Film Org where one of the producers was saying he overheard Joel Silver at a screening of Darkdrive (written in '95) saying something about 'borrowing' the idea. Darkdrive was a dumb movie, but had a dude in a black trenchcoat, running around in a grim virtual reality and jumping in slomo with guns.

A friend and I started shooting a little backyard sci-fi/action video in '98, again with trenchcoat, sunglasses and guns in slomo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-W6h0nDQyk&feature=channel_page I moved to LA and then Matrix came out so I never finished it. But the two characters were next going to be seen doing superhuman kung-fu as they turned out to be cyborgs. I had planned to have a shot where one would make a superleap onto the trunk of a moving car which would cause it to flip up in slow-mo as the glass shattered and all that now-cliche stuff, exactly like the shot in Reloaded.

How did I have similar ideas as the Wachowski's? Because we were both ripping off, er, influenced by the same sources- Tsui Hark, Yuen Woo-Ping, Frank Miller, William Gibson, Sergio Leone, anime and Asian genre in general. I had been wanting to take superkinetic, flying asian kung-fu style action and tone it down a little more realistically, use CGI, and put it in a dark, sci-fi story. When I first read about the Matrix before it's release, and I saw they got Woo-Ping for the fight choreography and Geof Darrow designing I slapped my forehead knowing that these Wachowski guys were going to do it right... and stealing all of my ideas!

jin choung
09-05-2009, 05:06 PM
and the whole idea of questioning "apparent reality" goes back further than proyas to philip k. dick's probable dissociative disorder.

sure, people have been talking about the nature of reality and experience since mankind crawled out of the muck, and then codified into religions and philosophers like aristotle, descartes, et al.

but it's remarkable to me that a single guy's (somewhat uncommon) mental disorder has left such an indelible mark on SCIENCE FICTION of all things.

jin

Mr Rid
09-05-2009, 05:17 PM
this was said in the transformers 2 thread as well but - PLOT HOLES are not good.
jin

You would think GLARING holes would be avoided, but if you have ever tried writing an original sci-fi/fanatsy/action script it is impossible to avoid contrivances. You have to pick your battles and filmmakers never know for certain what audiences are going to pick up on or not. Suspension of disbelief is of course entirely subjective. What is 'scary,' 'funny,' 'believable' is always in the eye of the beholder.

In VFX, you cant make every shot perfect. We scrutinize the plates and edits we work on very closely and see many seemingly obvious plot holes and continuity issues. But in the final edit, with the sound, music and action, most viewers will never catch it.

Here's a famous plot contrivance exposed- :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzoeEdW-EDQ

jin choung
09-05-2009, 05:25 PM
You would think GLARING holes would be avoided, but if you have ever tried writing an original sci-fi/fanatsy/action script it is impossible to avoid contrivances.

i have and i know how easily plot holes arise.

but for EVERY contrivance that you can cite as an example from ANY movie, i can give you an easy solution.

you could find easy solutions yourself. try it as an exercise - find a movie's plot holes and try to fill them. REALLY EASY. (in fact, it can probably be a pretty entertaining party game). the primary thing about that is not being "so close" to what you are working on that you don't see the obvious gaffes.

just because some things happen easily (plot holes, contrivances, easy coincidences [all the forces of literary entropy in other words]) does not mean it is excusable.

it is easier to make something sloppy than it is to make something well. i don't disagree. but that doesn't EXCUSE the sloppiness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i DO agree that picking battles is important. for some stories, logic/ plot holes are not that important. in a romcom or a fable or something like that. fine.

but if you have a high tech clancy-esque techno thriller, or hard sci fi or most action movies, plot holes can be deal breakers and will probably tarnish the legacy of the movie. differentiate it on whether it is remembered as a "tight classic" or just another "loud boorish disposable popcorn movie".

and when you have web commentators and fans (lay peeps in other words) complaining about plot holes, then you have a huge fing problem that is visible to non film makers/writers.

jin

Mr Rid
09-05-2009, 05:30 PM
i have and i know how easily plot holes arise.

but for EVERY contrivance that you can cite as an example from ANY movie, i can give you an easy solution.

you could find easy solutions yourself. try it as an exercise - find a movie's plot holes and try to fill them. REALLY EASY. the primary thing about that is not being "so close" to what you are working on that you don't see the obvious gaffes.

jin

Oh you can always fill in a hole, but always doing so without making the story more convoluted or less entertaining is the trick.

I propose a little different exercise and try to name a genre movie with NO plot holes. But experienced writers know you dont have to avoid every single plot hole to make a very popular or profitable movie. Most of the audience wont care, and so you try to pick out what seems to be the more significant problems but you just cant always anticipate what those will turn out to be. Things on paper dont always work in production, and things shot dont always work in the edit, and the edit does not always work with the FX. Compromises are inevitable.

jin choung
09-05-2009, 05:41 PM
Oh you can always fill in a hole, but doing so without making a less entertaining story is the trick.

I propose a little different exercise and try to name a genre movie with NO plot holes.

i disagree about the filling plot holes making for a LESS entertaining movie. in fact, i would argue that they are opportunities to make for a MORE entertaining and MORE suspenseful movie... precisely because you are NOT CHEATING.

"why doesn't marty mcfly just set the time circuit back with plenty of time to save doc?"

ANSWER: he DOES. the film makers saw it and filled it - how? he has plenty of time (and says so to himself) but the delorean fails to start (something that was nicely set up at the beginning of the sequence) so he has to RUN.

a really excellent example of a writer being on the ball and earning his pay.

as for a movie with no plot holes - i'm not sure that exists either. perfection in any form is rare if not out and out impossible. but again, my contention is that we should STILL strive. and not EXCUSE sloppiness just because it is common.

but for kicks... ummmm.... it would be illuminating for me if someone picked out the plot holes in "inglorious basterds" which i found to be pretty tight. true, different genre but still.

and here, i consider the relationship between shoshanna and nazi columbo not to be a plot hole but a mystery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

lessee... what else is pretty tight? ummmmm... howabout gattaca? or ummmm.... yeah, what about back to the future? or compare episode 1 to episode 4.

jin

Tom Wood
09-05-2009, 05:56 PM
I forgot....Why didn't the aliens in District 9 pick up and use their own weapons?

Mr Rid
09-05-2009, 06:10 PM
i disagree about the filling plot holes making for a LESS entertaining movie. in fact, i would argue that they are opportunities to make for a MORE entertaining and MORE suspenseful movie... precisely because you are NOT CHEATING.

Oh I agree, sometimes the problems can force you to come up with more realistically motivated, thus engaging story/character development. But other times the fill-ins may only convolute or dull the proceedings. I think you posted this response before I added my last line about how compromises also invariably arise between the stages of writing, shooting, editing and FX. Sometimes for the better- perfect example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE&feature=PlayList&p=2AD7CDEEBCDA5632



as for a movie with no plot holes - i'm not sure that exists either.

Precisely my point. It is not really possible, given all the factors that have to be balanced. So its pointless for anyone to be too nitpicky.



impossible. but again, my contention is that we should STILL strive. and not EXCUSE sloppiness just because it is common.

Absolutely. It is just harder to anticipate what will be convincing to most moviegoers than many assume.



lessee... what else is pretty tight? ummmmm... howabout gattaca? or ummmm.... yeah, what about back to the future?

In BTTF, I never understood how they could anticipate the exact fraction of a second that lightning would strike the clock tower. They seemed to only know the minute in which the clock stopped.

I dont have the movie, but I remember BTTF had some great continuity details that most people dont catch, like a tiny Marty in the background when Doc first gets shot. Or how the 'Lone Pine Mall' derives its name after one of the 'Twin Pines' gets mowed down on the farm in the past.

jin choung
09-05-2009, 06:27 PM
right. the raiders scene is a perfect example of gastro intestinal distress illuminating the glaring logic flaws apparently hard coded into george lucas.

jin

Mark The Great
09-05-2009, 09:22 PM
right. the raiders scene is a perfect example of gastro intestinal distress illuminating the glaring logic flaws apparently hard coded into george lucas.

jin

:lol:

Mr Rid
09-05-2009, 10:50 PM
I never read the book, but I found all of LOTR too silly to get into. Everywhere they go is the most dangerous place on earth, 'Oh no, NOT the Forest if Iggnon! Every man who dareth entereth hath diedeth some unutterable death!' But then someone delivers a rousing speech of courage, 'We MUST prevail!' ... followed by a battle of 10 against a 10,000 where all of the protaganists come out without a scratch... 15 minutes later, after no food or rest... 'Oh no, NOT the Swamp of Eekmar where no living soul may pass! ... rousing speech... battle against insane odds... 15 minutes later... '*gasp*, NOT the Mountain of Ridiculous Doom!' ... *gasp* NOT, the Tunnel of Xanax!' ... '*gasp* NOT the Pasture of Piggledypoo! ... We MUST prevail! ... 10 against 10,000 ... maybe a couple of scratches ... yay.

But having a powerful sorcerer in a script presents the same problem as trying to make Tom & Jerry seem realistic. The mouse can always pull a frying pan out of its arse at any moment and smack the big kitty over the head with it, so why would I ever extend it any concern? The only question is what item it might yank next out of its arse whenever is convenient. Couldnt Gandalph, whenever he felt like it, just make the bad guys explode, or blind them with a bright light, or turn them all into hamsters or something?

After Gandalf pulled a giant bird out of his arse by way of talking to a bug, I kept wondering this same thing-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU&feature=related

Kuzey
09-06-2009, 04:04 AM
It isn't, but they talked about Matrix a lot while shooting Bound, according to recollections of people who were there. I was just showing the timeline back to at least 1996 for concept, which pre-dates Dark City.


Yeah, I knew you were establishing a timeline for Matrix...I was just having fun with Bound. eg. making a normal film like Bound doesn't necessarily mean the directors could be ready to pull off a groundbreaking sci-fi film like Matrix...but they did.

Still, since we don't know the timeline of Dark City it's hard to be sure which concept was actually developed first.

Kuzey

Kuzey
09-06-2009, 04:40 AM
I never read the book, but I found all of LOTR too silly to get into.



The first LOTR was great but 2 & 3 were major let downs.

Those dead kings on horses were really wonderful, but when I found out that they had a leader who had a dragon. Well, come on...why wasn't he sent to retrieve the ring in the first place.

The same thing with the giant birds, why couldn't the wizard transform any little creature into one and fly the kid with the ring to the lava pit...end of story.

LOTR 3 was a repeat of 2 but with an ending, I was hoping the dead king/beast would have succeed in becoming physical again...just to change the repetitiveness of it all.

These kinda large plot holes hit you in the face as you are watching, it's not like you go back and examine the film scene by scene....at least I don't.

Same with 300, that was full of holes. Sin City and Wanted were wonderful....I never noticed any plot holes while watching them.

Kuzey

cresshead
09-06-2009, 05:04 AM
After Gandalf pulled a giant bird out of his arse by way of talking to a bug, I kept wondering this same thing-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU&feature=related


:agree:


ooohh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzoeEdW-EDQ&feature=channel

Tom Wood
09-06-2009, 05:15 AM
I never read the book, but I found all of LOTR too silly to get into. ... **Legitimate complaints about the movies go here.**

Compared to the experience of reading the books, the movies were awful. But now that you've seen the movies first, it's probably too late to go back and enjoy the books. So this might be the better reading experience for you:

Bored of the Rings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings)

danielkaiser
09-06-2009, 05:17 PM
no you don't.

you allow for the fact that suddenly no one can have children. such a simultaneous world wide event is literally the stuff of fantasy that has no real world precedent in any animal domain.

in dark city, a noseferatu dude waves his hand and people fall asleep. that is the stuff of fantasy that can't happen in the real world.

we (including you) don't hold the movie to the rules of OUR reality. as long as they establish THEIRS and stay consistent, we're in.

jin

As far as the animal model goes, they don't abuse their body's the way humans do, and it is well documented that during environmental stress that a given species will become infertile in order to preserve resources, i.e. during the famine in Ethiopia the birth rate dropped dramatically.

You should re-watch Dark City then tell me what the story is really about, and if you haven't had the opportunity to see it with the commentary by Roger Ebert, it provides many insights.

If you are viewing theses two movies as Sci-Fi then you may be missing the point.

For reference http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/trivia read about two thirds down.

Mr Rid
09-06-2009, 07:29 PM
Compared to the experience of reading the books, the movies were awful. But now that you've seen the movies first, it's probably too late to go back and enjoy the books. So this might be the better reading experience for you:

Bored of the Rings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings)

Am sure the books are fine, I just never could get in to the whole pointy-hat wizard and loveable Hobbitty thing. I guess around '80, a friend that was all into LOTR had told me to start reading with The Hobbit. A few chapters in I was bored. It was too tame for me at the time when I was into the dark, gritty worlds of 'Metal Hurlant' (Heavy Metal began in '74) and those far out european visualists (the mag became redundant and all about giant boobs after awhile). But I hated the Heavy Metal movie (except for B-17) and the stupid Uh-merican association with 80s drug culture and crappy heavy metal music- NOT what friends and I were picturing when we read the magazines. I was visualizing more gritty, Bladerunner/Matrix/Road Warrior style imagery-to-come.

The early Heavy Metal magazines influenced sci-fi cinema way more than most realize. Ridley Scott was into it, and of course hired Moebius (illustrated many stories in the mag) to design Alien and BR which re-defined the look of all sci-fi to come with that dirty, noir style. I doubt there is a sci-fi or fantasy movie including Avatar that does not resemble the look of one of the Metal Hurlant stories from the 70s. Am sure there is a floating rock world somewhere with primitive aliens riding flying creatures. Roger Dean certainly did the eco-friendly fantasy beings and floating islands thing in many paintings and album covers in the 70s. The severed-rock planet in Flash Gordon was definitely ripped off from a Roger Dean painting.

76958

76959

76960

76961

76962

prometheus
09-06-2009, 08:06 PM
I had no problems whatsoever with watching the LOTR movies, I enjoyed them all three very much, all three had moments wich I found esteticly very
pleasing when the cinematography reaches peaks close to classical
paintings.
nog big problems with the story in there either since I havent read the books, I hate reading books, it was all comics for me.

And yeah Ive got me some Heavy metal comics up in the attic somewhere.
I loved those and moebius.

Im afraid art and originality will be bleached in time, like paper in rain.

edit..ohh..I remember a painting of boris vallejo with some horses and a big fantasy floating city, maybe the flash movie
got some inspiration from that..have to check those again.

Michael

Mr Rid
09-06-2009, 08:13 PM
I had no problems whatsoever with watching the LOTR movies, I enjoyed them all three very much, all three had moments wich I found esteticly very
pleasing when the cinematography reaches peaks close to classical
paintings.

Yes, like most Hollywood spectacle these days, I found them neat to look at, but thats about it. All the focus these days is on the expensive eye candy- great looking people, set design, locations and FX.... loosely draped over an utterly predictable formula.

To me, everything begged for at least Frodo to have to sacrifice himself at the end of LOTR with all that buildup of grim foreshadowing. At the very least its impossible for a human to stand in the bowel of a volcano amidst 2000 degree lava without their skin being burned off their bones (same dumb thing in Star Wars III). The fact that none of the main protagonists were killed (except the more peripheral Boromir who was kinda shifty, so he had to go) in the face of such overwhelming adversity is just goofy when the movie took itself so damn seriously. Adversity and war are indifferent to the goodness or badness of individuals in reality. Its what I loved about the much maligned Alien 3 where Fincher abandoned the 'all the nice people live and the mean people die' formula of Aliens. The cute kid and the love interest are dead before it even gets started. Then the new love interest is also killed in mid-movie. Realistic. Convincing. Sacrifice.

jasonwestmas
09-06-2009, 08:34 PM
Yes, like most Hollywood spectacle these days, I found them neat to look at. But thats about it. All the focus these days is on the expensive eye candy- great looking people, set design, locations and FX.... loosely draped over an utterly predictable formula.

To me, everything begged for at least Frodo to have to sacrifice himself at the end of LOTR with all that buildup up grim foreshadowing. The fact that none of the main characters died (except the more peripheral Boromir who was kinda shifty) in the face of such overwhelming adversity is just goofy.

I think they should have killed off Aragorn at that cliff scene with the giant dogs and have his ghost wander around till he met the right mystic to ressurect him as "The Amazingly White Aragorn". Much more believeable, lol.

prometheus
09-06-2009, 08:55 PM
Yes, like most Hollywood spectacle these days, I found them neat to look at. But thats about it. All the focus these days is on the expensive eye candy- great looking people, set design, locations and FX.... loosely draped over an utterly predictable formula.

To me, everything begged for at least Frodo to have to sacrifice himself at the end of LOTR with all that buildup up grim foreshadowing. The fact that none of the main protagonists were killed (except the more peripheral Boromir who was kinda shifty, so he had to go) in the face of such overwhelming adversity is just goofy. Adversity and war are indifferent to the goodness or badness of individuals in reality. Its what I loved about the much maligned Alien 3 where Fincher abandoned the 'all the nice people live and the mean people die' formula of Aliens. The cute kid and the love interest are dead before it even gets started. Then the new love interest is also killed in mid-movie. Realistic.

Well Yeah..I really didn´t bother about thinking of it like that, I was content with it being like that, no one injured and frodo looked quite
satisfied to jump on the death ship towards the silver glimming sea.

But I can imagine in front of me some parody of that movie, especially
the many sequences where frodo shows his ridiculous dog eye expression
, like in the end and samwise gamgi looks back almost equally ridiculous.
this is really good for some homofobic parody.

The Alien 3 movie however, wich I feel is the true last alien movie when it comes to realism following presequels.
It gives me mixed feeling thou, I didn´t like the little girl Newt getting vasted and not sigourney either, especially not after the good feelings you get after watching the end in aliens,Yay they made it!

But at the same time that´s a very
logic way the story could end when facing one of the deadliest nasty things in universe I guess.
And yes it´s interesting to break the classic hero survives and saves all stereotype.
But still..I wasn´t fully comfortable with it.

Ohh by the way, I wonder what artist inspired Hr giger, and if gigers
artwork are more a ripp off from real world artifacts like a fascination
of bones or if some of his early inspiration from other artists has any similarities with gigers artwork today.

Well the guy is weird anyway, and from interviews Ivé seen, I guess he just closes his eyes and up rises his angst and visions of horrible worlds.
I guess being born at a time when the second world war began had it´s
impact.


Michael

Mr Rid
09-06-2009, 11:09 PM
...
The Alien 3 movie however, wich I feel is the true last alien movie when it comes to realism following presequels.
It gives me mixed feeling thou, I didn´t like the little girl Newt getting vasted and not sigourney either, especially not after the good feelings you get after watching the end in aliens,Yay they made it!

I think no one liked A3 because it didnt follow that formula, all-wrapped-up, happy ending like the 2nd one had, which is exactly why I preferred the 3rd over the 2nd one. Aliens, departed from the realism of the 1st one, with obvious formula and was not the least bit scary, but was rather an action movie. And I thought the marines were way too stupid and 1-dimensional for super soldiers of the far flung future. I was expecting far more bada-s-s characters, probably bred or at least genetically chosen for combat, and doing something a little more strategic than just standing in the middle of a room, waving a gun, yelling cliches from a previous century. But for me there should be a real reason why the heroes survive the monster other than just because we want them to. What superior trait did the humans possess that allowed them to defeat a 'perfect organism' besides their just being nicer?



Ohh by the way, I wonder what artist inspired Hr giger, and if gigers
artwork are more a ripp off from real world artifacts like a fascination
of bones or if some of his early inspiration from other artists has any similarities with gigers artwork today.

Giger seems rather uniquely original. If you like his stuff, you might like Beksinski who is usually compared to H.R., although I think it has a lot more going on. I wanna see a movie that looks like this http://www.gnosis.art.pl/iluminatornia/sztuka_o_inspiracji/zdzislaw_beksinski/zdzislaw_beksinski.htm
76966

76967

76968

76969

jasonwestmas
09-07-2009, 08:20 AM
Cool, artist talk. It appears Beksinski is obsessed with remembering "undelt with" tradgedy. . .death. It seems to haunt him or he finds it to be an entity in itself that has a slight side of beauty that is always with him. But that's just what his stuff means to me. Beksinski often claimed that there was no simple way to describe what he was painting as if they were strictly subconscious like a dream. I think I like the color palette the best.

prometheus
09-07-2009, 12:48 PM
I think no one liked A3 because it didnt follow that formula, all-wrapped-up, happy ending like the 2nd one had, which is exactly why I preferred the 3rd over the 2nd one. Aliens, departed from the realism of the 1st one, with obvious formula and was not the least bit scary, but was rather an action movie. And I thought the marines were way too stupid and 1-dimensional for super soldiers of the far flung future. I was expecting far more bada-s-s characters, probably bred or at least genetically chosen for combat, and doing something a little more strategic than just standing in the middle of a room, waving a gun, yelling cliches from a previous century. But for me there should be a real reason why the heroes survive the monster other than just because we want them to. What superior trait did the humans possess that allowed them to defeat a 'perfect organism' besides their just being nicer?


weré probably going a little of topic with the thread but the connection is there with james cameron at least.

Well Yeah I agree with you on that the alien 1 and 3 are closer to each other in formula and realism, I however prefered alien 1 and aliens.
they all had different moods setup, alien 1 with it´s open vast space and spoky scary not noing what´s around the corner feeling.

aliens 2 was a more action packed story with a more shrinked space in a klaustrofobic sense, and I think I felt more suspense and nervous in that movie than in the first actually, not directly scared in the same way as the first creeping movie thou.
One thing about aliens it is that it feelt kinda large scale well produced and had a weight to it wich surpassed almost everything else at that time.

The first alien thou feels more original and artisticly, cinematographicly and storywise better.

The third alien didn´t give me that much chills and didn´t have that nerv either for me, but it provided an interesting realistic story and the mood
was setup in a different depressive doomsday style.

I can understand and see your point about stupid soldiers that acts out with cliches from a "wrong century"
I think it probably was made that way with intention even thou it
didnt follow the rules on how it actually should be for realism.
I guess that was a part of getting a strong contrast in the drama in terms
of when they finally faces the aliens, they realize what horror really is.

Maybe kind of something similar to that of young soldiers going out to
war with a cocky invincible attitude not noing what they are getting in to
like vietnam or something.
So in that context I think it was good doing it thay way to get that contrast in the movie when they realise what´s happening, like bill paxley(hudson) say´s...oh man this aint happening..this aint happening. that´s were a surreal trauma emotion comes through, like your in an accident or something.
Ohh..well and why sending in a small pluton with a few soldiers, that´s
a little unlogical perhaps.

But it´s a fine balance pulling it of and depending on personal preferences and likings, it will not make sense for all.
In aliens 4 resurrection that kind of cocky cliche attitud shows up again from the betty crew, but that didn´t work out for me at all.


Regarding heroes surviving, well I think there´s been a thread through out the series that ripley has an extremely strong take action persona strength with different combined characteristics and psychological
behavior and adaptive abilities that helps her handle extrem situations were most other people would freeze and be paralyzed.
Taking the right decisions and actions is a strong characteristics of ripley
that puts her ahead of muscles.
You know she was against letting the damn thing in to the nostromo at the first place:)

Im glad they did use a female for this role instead of a typical male
heroe and it´s typical muscle action stereotype.

ohh .. beksinski are nice.

Michael

prometheus
09-07-2009, 01:00 PM
by the way, here was an interesting script for an alien sequel.
Ive skimmed it through a little, and some things sounds very interesting
and a little close to what I had in mind, while some things are not.

there´s a pdf document on
http://alienv.blogspot.com/

or direct link
https://www.box.net/shared/vkcjqt4ajt

It´s now in the hands of Ridley scott thou, and appearantly it´s taking
place before nostromo dealing with the beacon signal or something.

Michael

jin choung
09-07-2009, 03:03 PM
ack... i hated alien3... just nullified everything that aliens was about... just so conveniently dispatched newt...

they should have stopped at aliens imo.

what hollywood consistently fails to understand is that a sequel is not only an opportunity to quickly cash out but it's an opportunity to completely ruin the legacy of something that was genuinely great for all time (coughmatrixcough).

jin

Mr Rid
09-07-2009, 04:09 PM
ack... i hated alien3... just nullified everything that aliens was about... just so conveniently dispatched newt...
jin

Understandable. Although Aliens nullified what Alien was about (eggs came from host cocoons, not a queen, which is more disturbing to me). I see that Newt and Hicks were dispatched because Fincher did not want to continue the pat formula or 'rah-rah' expectation from Aliens (which am sure we will see in Avatar... there, we're on topic). He wanted to let the viewer know this not a Hollywood, happy-ending place where all the heroes will turn out just dandy (LOTR), but rather returned the audience to the far more unfair & horrific hell world of the first film. If the sweet little girl/daughter surrogate and the gentle warrior/love interest are dead in reel one, then no one is safe here. Anything could happen.

And of course killing off Ripley was something the studio execs were dead against (but how will we continue to milk the franchise?!). I think much of the flaws of A3 were due to studio resistance to Fincher's breaking with formula, and am sure they just wanted another popcorn-seller like Aliens. But that was what impressed me so much about it. Fincher exhibited startling genius on his first feature at only age 27 (the scenes with Ripley and the doctor are all very good...then wham). If you ever view A3 again, I think the director's cut is a better movie (even though I cant find any evidence that Fincher cut it).

Mike_RB
09-07-2009, 06:12 PM
I see that Newt and Hicks were dispatched because Fincher did not want to continue the pat formula or 'rah-rah' expectation from Aliens (which am sure we will see in Avatar... there, we're on topic). He wanted to let the viewer know this not a Hollywood, happy-ending place where all the heroes will turn out just dandy (LOTR), but rather returned the audience to the far more unfair & horrific hell world of the first film.

If thats really what he wanted to do he would have had Hicks, Newt and Bishop in there for half an hour and then killed them off one at a time. Total audience shock value...

jameswillmott
09-07-2009, 06:26 PM
I thought Newt died because the actress was too old to play her again and Hicks died because the actor who played him didn't want to play the role again?

Mr Rid
09-07-2009, 07:06 PM
If thats really what he wanted to do he would have had Hicks, Newt and Bishop in there for half an hour and then killed them off one at a time. Total audience shock value...

Why pay 3 more salaries? I think Fincher wanted nothing to do with the happy family setup at all that Cameron was obviously going for, and dousing the concept in his own unique stink. I see it as more effective to cast Ripley into total vulnerability with no allies or weapons, amidst a bunch of psychopaths/predators, and having to convince them of the situation. I imagine that killing a cute child in mid-movie is taboo that would be even harder to convince the studio of, but more importantly Carrie Henn would indeed be too old to continue as Newt and would have to be replaced with a different actress which would call too much attention to itself.


I thought Newt died because the actress was too old to play her again and Hicks died because the actor who played him didn't want to play the role again?

Michael Biehn has only expressed deep disappointment in interviews at being cut from the 3rd film (on the A3 making of)- understandably, since A3 certainly might have secured his place as a 1st tier, action star. Here he says that being cut was why he never even watched the rest of the Alien movies (terrible sound) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oXxE1y3xjY

jameswillmott
09-07-2009, 07:35 PM
Michael Biehn has only expressed deep disappointment in interviews at being cut from the 3rd film (on the A3 making of)- understandably, since A3 certainly might have secured his place as a 1st tier, action star. Here he says that being cut was why he never even watched the rest of the Alien movies (terrible sound) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oXxE1y3xjY

I was misinformed then, thanks for clearing that up.

Stooch
09-09-2009, 10:57 AM
aliens 2 was the best imo. the marines were super cocky and thats why they all died. the only people who were truly afraid, lived to tell the tale... sort of.

what was awesome about aliens 2 is the extremely, supremely realistic and gritty depiction of the environment. the set design made the movie. but overall i felt that it really stuck to its rules and really made you feel the hostility of the environment, from the howling wind to the blowing dust and the wathered and USED feel for everything in the movie. They even had a Mech in it! but as a useful machine with a PURPOSE.

its really amazing just how much detail was infused into it. thoughtful detail. the kid stuck in the wall coming to life was a real clincher for me. Also, even though it was just rubber suits, the aliens were quite believable because of the awesome camera work and judicious screen time.

alien 3 was a little low on action for me. maybe its the fan of muzzle flashes and explosions in me.

if thats the kind of overall attention to detail we will see in avatar, its going to be a blast.

erikals
09-09-2009, 01:03 PM
...am i the only one that though Alien4 was alright ? :)

jasonwestmas
09-09-2009, 03:13 PM
...am i the only one that though Alien4 was alright ? :)

The first hour was pretty fun. Just got kinda rediculous after that.

Stooch
09-09-2009, 09:10 PM
Avp requiem was pretty ridiculous too. Yet another comic inspired pos that didn't even do justice to the comic.

Mr Rid
10-30-2009, 02:14 AM
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hdtrailers.html

Chris S. (Fez)
10-30-2009, 07:57 AM
The Aliens title sequence is haunting (especially with sound):

http://www.artofthetitle.com/media/film/alien_quad/aliens_contact.jpg

shrox
10-30-2009, 08:53 AM
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hdtrailers.html

The music in the beginning is from Michael Bay's "The Island"...did they spend too much on FX?

Mr Rid
10-30-2009, 01:02 PM
[QUOTE=Chris S. (Fez);942364]The Aliens title sequence is haunting (especially with sound):

I think the original Alien trailer is one of the top 5 trailers of all time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oYNvmNZP2o Intriguing and alarming, with no stupid 'In a world...' voiceover. Does not giveaway the whole damn movie like most trailers do now. And ends with the most famous and parodied slogan ever.

But this is the greatest trailer ever made-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbFuNQwTbs&feature=player_embedded

We used to watch new trailers every day at work and laugh at the inevitable "now" moment in the voiceover. If you listen, every trailer with a voiceover first explains the plot conflict, then says, "NOW..." followed by something about '... he/she/they must escape or save the world, or go back to college or pretend to be something (if its comedy), or whatever plot is overexplained.

jasonwestmas
10-30-2009, 01:23 PM
Yes, I often feel like a little pod-person with the movie industry trying to suck the life out of me through my eyes and ears. Only because the video and audio literally hurts my psyche am I able to resist, shake off the beams of light and runaway.

Mr Rid
10-30-2009, 01:37 PM
Yes, I often feel like a little pod-person with the movie industry trying to suck the life out of me through my eyes and ears. Only because the video and audio literally hurts my psyche am I able to resist, shake off the beams of light and runaway.

Yeah, too many spectacle movies are all just flash and noise with no suspense, grounding, or anything/body to relate to. Why are action movies growing less and less concerned with anything remotely resembling plausibility?

Tom Wood
10-30-2009, 03:00 PM
Why are action movies growing less and less concerned with anything remotely resembling plausibility?

I'm not sure the problem is with plausibility, but rather with story. I can accept any setup, even something so odd as 'you are just a battery in a virtual world' as long as the story is engaging. Story is character change during the course of the movie.

Too many action movies leave that part out, or give it only passing attention. Give me a character who has a problem I can relate to, and I'll jump into his/her skin and take the ride. Without that entry into the movie's world, it's all just spectacle.

jasonwestmas
10-30-2009, 03:02 PM
Yeah, too many spectacle movies are all just flash and noise with no suspense, grounding, or anything/body to relate to. Why are action movies growing less and less concerned with anything remotely resembling plausibility?

I think it's because a good movie as a whole isn't important anymore. People in general are more obsessed with stimuli they liked in the past but don't really understand why they liked it in the first place. Oh so often is the nostolgic image or old system of entertainment given credit for the minds that created the sequence of events and backbone that places the superficial in the correct slots of actual interest within the hearts and minds of people. I tend to call this phenomenon "Quarter-Back" or "Poster-Boy" syndrome where the superficial gossip and media praise only 1 tenth of what made the entire picture great. Video games and movies are very much effected by this and get ruined by it.

cresshead
10-30-2009, 03:09 PM
aliens best movie..my most re-watched one for sure!

robertoortiz
10-30-2009, 04:45 PM
Yeah, too many spectacle movies are all just flash and noise with no suspense, grounding, or anything/body to relate to. Why are action movies growing less and less concerned with anything remotely resembling plausibility?
there are tons of reasons...
here are some in my book:
The Director is no longer King
For starters we have now a Hollywood where the producer is king and the director plays second fidle to him. All the decisions made by the Director can be second guessed by the MULTIPLE producers on a films. All this second guessing leads to mediocre films.
Back in the 70's and 80's Directors ruled the roost, and people would see films just on the name recognition of the director.
Then in the 90's, studios were gobbled up left and right by mega corporations, and the rest is history.

The producers are clueless
And to make matters worst, in my humble opinion, the current crop of producers the idea storytelling is something completely foreign and alien. It has now been replaced by its evil cousin "the Big Concept". there are rumors and tales of producers being proud of being illiterate or worst..

Boardroom mentality
The reason for this is simple, it is something you can explain with ease at a boardroom. and sadly a lot of film are now made by committee. the reasons is simple, the films is seen as a product that works as a tent pole for other markets.

MTV has a lot to answer for.
the main training ground for Directors is the music video biz. That is a awesome training environment to hone a nice visual style, but it does not help you grow as a storyteller, if you are trying to tell a tale longer than 3 minutes.
Skipping reality for Film school
Another big reason is that the kids going to film school do no have any connection with the real world. NONE.

Hollywood is a place that a lot of the people in front and behind the cameras come from families in the biz.
Nepotism is alive and well in the biz. It is a VERY tough place for a common Joe to make it behind the cameras without the proper connections.

wanna have fun,
got to imdb and just enter:
Coppola, Barrymore, Arquette,


Talent is envied and crushed, not nurtured.
Back in the old Hollywood studio system from the 30s, 40s talent would be nurtured in front and behind the cameras. The reason is simple, studio heads in those days had a long term view of the biz. That changed in 50's and the 60's with the arrival of Television.
And the studio system never recovered.

Wanna have more fun,

I have his films, but i respect the man
read Tyler Perry opinions on the current hollywood system, and how he went around it, to make it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1724393,00.html

God and Tyler Perry vs. Hollywood - TIME

Mr Rid
10-30-2009, 05:05 PM
Except none of this really explains something like Indy 4 where the director is absolute emperor, synonymous with great storytelling, and famous for his humble yet innnovative beginnings. In particular, how could ANYone involved with that production believe that audiences would find that ridiculous refrigerator/nuke scene plausible in the slightest?!

And actually the stuffy old Hollywood system was rather closed, formulaic, star-driven assembly line until they lost touch in the 60s, and gritty, indy films like Easy Rider sparked the era of director as auteur. ... until Spillberg and Pucas spawned the current movie-as-corporate-franchise model.

robertoortiz
10-30-2009, 05:08 PM
Simple, if you isolate yourself from your audience, you start losing connection with them. And soon you lose connection with reality itself...(and TMZ makes a killing when this happens).
Advice from a friend, if you make it big, dont move to Hollyweird.

Mr Rid
10-30-2009, 05:28 PM
I think it's because a good movie as a whole isn't important anymore. People in general are more obsessed with stimuli they liked in the past but don't really understand why they liked it in the first place. Oh so often is the nostolgic image or old system of entertainment given credit for the minds that created the sequence of events and backbone that places the superficial in the correct slots of actual interest within the hearts and minds of people. I tend to call this phenomenon "Quarter-Back" or "Poster-Boy" syndrome where the superficial gossip and media praise only 1 tenth of what made the entire picture great. Video games and movies are very much effected by this and get ruined by it.

I agree. I would add that directors of sequels and remakes often fail to grasp what was cool about the original, and proceed to make a mess.

Mike_RB
10-30-2009, 05:35 PM
I want another Kurosawa... where the hell is he. Should be all over the place now that you can make films for no budget on pro gear.

District 9 is interesting in that it was small enough that Jackson essentially gave Blompkamp the reins and let him run with it. It's Neil's film through and through... and it shows by being different. (flawed in some ways how he told his narrative, but for a 1st time out... not bad). Maybe that is a model more 'studios' will do. Take on newer directors, give them good but not obscene budgets and let them control it....

IMI
10-30-2009, 05:41 PM
Yeah, too many spectacle movies are all just flash and noise with no suspense, grounding, or anything/body to relate to. Why are action movies growing less and less concerned with anything remotely resembling plausibility?

That's the exact feeling I had watching the latest Die Hard movie.
Well, Bruce Willis is always cool and usually pretty funny, but that was the movie's only endearing quality. The special effects were great of course, but just so far out there, I thought the whole movie was just an excuse to show off their latest CG effects and abilities.

cresshead
10-30-2009, 06:51 PM
wait till you see 2012...that's looking to be ALL fx and no story at all!

Chris S. (Fez)
10-30-2009, 07:18 PM
wait till you see 2012...that's looking to be ALL fx and no story at all!

I am actually looking forward to the sheer spectacle of that film. 2012 is disaster porn:

Put a couple attractive characters on screen and...bring on doomsday :devil:.

prometheus
10-31-2009, 02:53 AM
[QUOTE
I think the original Alien trailer is one of the top 5 trailers of all time. [/QUOTE]

Agreed..that is one Master trailer.

dunno about the seinfield thing thou..I dont´watch that show, and never
understood the fuzz about it, maybe im just boring.:tongue:

I miss Luc Besson and his movies..

how the heck could the holly guys make point of no return as a remake of Nikita,
the only thing I got a pleasure of from that movie, was bridget fonda
for her sweetness only.

Michael

erikals
10-31-2009, 03:54 AM
i miss seeing people being challenged, and believe they are being challenged.

Mike_RB
10-31-2009, 08:27 AM
Hehe... correct. And isn't that great to have time (and now probably the money ;)) to grow? Unlike M.Night S. where his first project was amazing and everything later fell flat - guess you'll feel really helpless when you realize that no matter what you do, you'll never again find the "correct" formula that made for example The Sixth Sense so special. Looking forward to Neil's next projects... :)

I think Neil's 'formula' has better lasting power. It's not based around a single thing like a surprise reveal.

Neil's usually about action, questionable ethics guys in lab-coats, plastic bag garbage blowing in the wind and caught on barbwire, and robots (particularly running on treadmills). :)

Neil's other work:

Yellow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmd8BDiB-qU

Tetra Vaal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snfc_wNWqSU

Halo Landfall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyKSaXsg-PE

Some d9 concept stuff:
http://www.wetanz.com/district9/

erikals
10-31-2009, 09:01 AM
(Tetra Vaal was all LW btw...) http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Mike_RB
10-31-2009, 09:41 AM
(Tetra Vaal was all LW btw...) http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Still is.

Dirk
11-05-2009, 12:54 AM
I did show the trailer to my wife, and as soon as the blue catpeople appeared, she rejected the whole thing instantly, in a split second.

Dirk
11-05-2009, 01:35 AM
Don't know if I can enjoy the mechs. Mechs with hands?? Wielding Guns ???

Tom Wood
11-05-2009, 02:01 AM
Blue cat peoplez? That openz ups a whole new category of LOLbluecatz.

Dirk
11-05-2009, 02:09 AM
I don't know what to think about the whole thing. Much of the Trailer looks like a computer game. Some stuff looks really good, like the scene where the na'vi girl spans her bow. But the "Go Back. It's all your fault"-scene feels horrible.

There's an awful lot of cringeworthy stuff in it; I fear I'll sit in the movie theater and bang my head on the front chair every few minutes crying "why did you do that???"

Dirk
11-05-2009, 02:22 AM
That way we could have a go at the best CG bits without having to endure what will probably be an emo, environmentalist story of Titanic proportions, which I'm really not sure I can endure without vomiting.

Well, that's another big concern. If they begin to preach to me about saving the rainforest, I'll develop a stiff-middle-finger syndrome.

POSSIBLE SPOILER:



Dunno if it's true, but I read something written by a guy who says he has read the script. He writes that in the end, the planet itself (himself? herself? whatever) will help to defeat the earthlings.

If that turns out to be true, it'll be the most funny moment in movie history since the birth of Darth Vader.

Tom Wood
11-05-2009, 07:19 AM
I fear I'll sit in the movie theater and bang my head on the front chair every few minutes crying "why did you do that???"

Why? Why, do you always have to sit behind ME?!?

Dirk
11-05-2009, 10:35 AM
Why? Why, do you always have to sit behind ME?!?

That's Karma.

Tom Wood
11-05-2009, 12:24 PM
If you -really- want to spoil the movie for yourself, you can read the scriptment HERE (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14294813/Avatar-Scriptment-by--James-Cameron).

shrox
11-05-2009, 12:31 PM
The color of the aliens is what puts me off. While I suppose it's possible, it just looks too odd to be believable for me.

If the mechs are multitaskable they might have hands. Some designs for new robotic arms for the space station have hands, it a most versatile design and we know how it works.

Cageman
11-05-2009, 01:01 PM
But the "Go Back. It's all your fault"-scene feels horrible.

Could you care to explain more what you find wrong with it? I've watched it tons of times now and I'm not at all sure what you mean.

jasonwestmas
11-05-2009, 01:12 PM
The color of the aliens is what puts me off. While I suppose it's possible, it just looks too odd to be believable for me.



Color is an odd thing in and of itself when I stop to think about it. Why does anyone try to make literal sense of it? Why is my skin a pale and my blood red, blue and purple? :) To me it's just a visual space and material indicator with an whole spectrum of feelings attached to it depending on other colors that surround a single color or gradient.