A perfect summary of Avatar... - Movies

guitardave · 09-11-2009, 17:23

Unwittingly, my girlfriend perfectly summed up my feelings towards Avatar when I was watching the trailer. She came in the room half way through, and straight away said "Is that a new Playstation game?". That summed it up perfectly to me - it just looks like an extended cut scene from a PS3 game, but then sometimes there's real actors in there too. To be honest, this film, in my opinion, looks pants. Or maybe I'm the odd one out here and it's actually genius...

Dave

Iggyman · 09-11-2009, 17:37

It certainly looks like low-brow, dumbed down, badly written, typical James Cameron rubbish - but it's unfair to judge it based on a trailer.

guitardave · 09-11-2009, 17:43

Maybe it's good, story-wise, obviously I don't know that yet, but it's the Playstation-y look of it that puts me off, the fact that it looks like a game and not a movie. But hey, too each his/her own!

UltraViolet · 09-11-2009, 18:52

Some reviewer called it Dances With Wolves in Space. Fits well from the look of it.

Al_T3D · 09-11-2009, 18:56

Keep saying it's gonna be crap, it can only equal or surpass your expectations.

mark01942 · 09-11-2009, 20:30

Saw the trailer on the BIG screen t'other day, my immediate reaction? Three Words:
Computer Generated B*ll*ks

I'll pass...

Al_T3D · 09-11-2009, 20:36

CGI done well though. If it was CGI badly done, fair enough, but face it, CGI is here to stay, physical fx are becoming more and more expensive, and the bigger the idea, the less practical the use of 'practical' FX will be, there is still room for both of course, and if balanced well they can produce some glorious work. What would you do to improve on the work displayed in the trailer?

AppleTango · 09-11-2009, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_T3D

CGI done well though.

The thing is, I don't think there is such thing as good CGI any more.

The CGI in Jurassic Park is a million times better than anything we get in the year 2009.

SlashNX · 09-11-2009, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleTango

The thing is, I don't think there is such thing as good CGI any more.

The CGI in Jurassic Park is a million times better than anything we get in the year 2009.

Reading stuff like this annoys me. Because you really dont realise how much CGI is in movies nowadays most of it goes completely unnoticed, that's how good it is!

Fantasy CGI is always going to have a hard time, because the viewer automatically knows its not real because its nothing like they've seen before. But the amount of cgi landscapes, buildings and people that appear in every day movies (rom coms, period dramas, thrillers...) that goes unnoticed would shock you.

rivercity_rules · 09-11-2009, 23:51

I was pretty underwhelmed by the Trailer to be honest.

I want to see it to see what all the fuss is about, but I just can't see that trailer turning it into the massive hit that I keep reading it's going to be. It looked like a load of nonsense.

AppleTango · 10-11-2009, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlashNX

Reading stuff like this annoys me. Because you really dont realise how much CGI is in movies nowadays most of it goes completely unnoticed, that's how good it is!

No it doesn't go unnoticed, it stands out a mile to me because of how shite it is most of the time,

performingmonk · 10-11-2009, 00:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleTango

The thing is, I don't think there is such thing as good CGI any more.

The CGI in Jurassic Park is a million times better than anything we get in the year 2009.

People mention Jurassic Park at lot. The key thing with JP is how FEW CGI shots there are. There's a lot more practical effects shots than CGI, unlike now where it's the other way around, very few practical. 90% of the time the T-Rex is the huge animatronic.

Guillermo del Toro seems determined to use plenty of practical elements in the new Hobbit film. You just can't beat seeing something 'real' whether it's a minature, animatronics, brilliant makeup and prosthetics. CGI should always be used as the icing on the cake as opposed to the whole cake, because...who the hell just wants icing?? Too much CGI and it feels like a game cutscene. Suddenly it's not a film anymore.

JCR · 10-11-2009, 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by performingmonk

People mention Jurassic Park at lot. The key thing with JP is how FEW CGI shots there are. There's a lot more practical effects shots than CGI, unlike now where it's the other way around, very few practical. 90% of the time the T-Rex is the huge animatronic.

Guillermo del Toro seems determined to use plenty of practical elements in the new Hobbit film. You just can't beat seeing something 'real' whether it's a minature, animatronics, brilliant makeup and prosthetics. CGI should always be used as the icing on the cake as opposed to the whole cake, because...who the hell just wants icing?? Too much CGI and it feels like a game cutscene. Suddenly it's not a film anymore.

Problem is models are a lot more expensive than CGI.

mark01942 · 10-11-2009, 01:40

The thing I have against CGI is that it looks cheap.
You can picture a bunch of geeks, tappity tapping at some bl**dy keyboard, then patting 'emselves on the back as to how real it all looks (it DOESN'T!!!)

Compare this to, ooh, say "Space:1999".
YES we know they are models, but at least we can be grateful for all the time, effort (and SKILL) that went into creating them.

I often say that a lot of trailers look just like ps2 games.
Sadly, this becomes more true each passing day

Alvar Hanso · 10-11-2009, 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark01942

The thing I have against CGI is that it looks cheap.
You can picture a bunch of geeks, tappity tapping at some bl**dy keyboard, then patting 'emselves on the back as to how real it all looks (it DOESN'T!!!)

Compare this to, ooh, say "Space:1999".
YES we know they are models, but at least we can be grateful for all the time, effort (and SKILL) that went into creating them.

I often say that a lot of trailers look just like ps2 games.
Sadly, this becomes more true each passing day

cheap ?

have you seen king kong (the ape himself)

lord of the rings( gollum comes to mind)

any number of movies, the tidal wave, in Deep Impact, the pseudopod in The Abyss, Transformers, so many instances exist where CGI looks awesome and certainly surpasses optical and the old visibility of matte lines, back projection etc

bad-beat · 10-11-2009, 09:56

The CGI in King Kong was absolutely terrible.

PJ68 · 10-11-2009, 11:26

typical james cameron rubbish?? terminator, terminator 2, titanic, the abyss, aliens....

i am very anti CGI and i hated the first cheap looking trailer BUT i am willing to give JC the benefit of the doubt.

i thought titanic sounded rubbish - admittedly a lot of people think it is cheesy but i find it 'pure cinema'. there are some films where you just have to let yourself go with them and that is one of them

JC has yet to make a film i can't watch again and again - aliens, titanic and T2 are in my all time top 10

i saw the teaser on the big screen and i did actually think 'hmmm looks a bit better'

i think on a big screen with good 3D you'll soon forget the CGI (it isn't ALL cgi either..) and immerse yourself in it

i have gone from dreading it to being desperate to see it

i have even booked the IMAX for the first time

kingjeremy · 10-11-2009, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitardave

Unwittingly, my girlfriend perfectly summed up my feelings towards Avatar when I was watching the trailer. She came in the room half way through, and straight away said "Is that a new Playstation game?". That summed it up perfectly to me - it just looks like an extended cut scene from a PS3 game, but then sometimes there's real actors in there too. To be honest, this film, in my opinion, looks pants. Or maybe I'm the odd one out here and it's actually genius...

Dave

Spot on.

If it had been a trailer for a new game I would have said it looks excellent but for a film I think it looks pretty naff and fake looking. Trailer just leaves me cold, I think i'll pass.

I Caught a bit of Sith the other day and I had forgotten just how bad it looked, Clones was even worse, I felt like I was watching a computer game. Personally I find these films devoid of any emotion and this is why they'll age badly, effects might look great at the time but if that's all a film has going for it then you're going to watch it in the future and think wow this really is crap.

My problem with CGI a lot of the time is the smaller things though, I feel it comes down to pure laziness on the directors behalf rather than cost. It wouldn't have cost anymore to get hold of a half a dozen scorpions in Crystal Skull and have them crawl on Mutt but it would have looked a million times better than the rather obvious looking CGI ones that we got.

Obviously they couldn't be arsed with that little extra effort though.

Granny72 · 10-11-2009, 11:48

Going by the trailer it is basically Dances with Wolves in space with aliens and a recycling of the marines from Aliens.
Halo 'borrowed' the latter for its game so any CGI fest like this just looks like a glossy Xbox game intro.
At least the Avatar game devs didn't have to strain themselves too much in adapting it.

Moony · 10-11-2009, 12:23

Most people on this thread seem to be assuming the CGI has been designed to look like real life and failed.

Perhaps the CGI has intentionally been given a more fantasy/cartoony look. It wouldnt be the first movie to do so.

If the CGI has been intentionally designed to look like that - it makes no more sense to criticise it for "not looking real" than it would be to criticise Toy Story for the same reason.

gorgeousgirl · 10-11-2009, 14:10

I keep hearing that this film is going to be the next big thing or whatever but the trailer just isn't selling it for me, that little clip will no way get me to pay to see a film i know nothing about.

saadali · 10-11-2009, 14:39

I am agree with ultra violet views about this

PJ68 · 10-11-2009, 15:29

cgi should be used sparingly, for just things it is impossible to do with models or stuntmen, and NOT for things like people fighting ot car crashes or animals.

it always looks so fake when used like that

funny we now long for the days for indiana jones first 3 adverntures with their real locations and stunts

kingjeremy · 10-11-2009, 15:33

Reminds me a bit of when final fantasy came out, huge hype about the so called CGI photo realistic characters etc, people talking like real actors would soon become obsolete, then the film went and bombed lol

Hollywood's latest fad seems to be 3D, i'm sure it's great at times in the cinema but it seems to me that it's something that really doesn't translate all that well to home viewing.

Granny72 · 10-11-2009, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moony

Most people on this thread seem to be assuming the CGI has been designed to look like real life and failed.

Perhaps the CGI has intentionally been given a more fantasy/cartoony look. It wouldnt be the first movie to do so.

If the CGI has been intentionally designed to look like that - it makes no more sense to criticise it for "not looking real" than it would be to criticise Toy Story for the same reason.

I don't mind it being 'stylized' as long as it doesn't have me reaching for my joypad while watching it.
That said, I will be going to get the full effect as JC is a director I'll always give the benefit of the doubt to.

09-11-2009, 17:23	#1
guitardave Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Manchester Services: Sky+ HD, Sky Broadband Posts: 487	A perfect summary of Avatar... Unwittingly, my girlfriend perfectly summed up my feelings towards Avatar when I was watching the trailer. She came in the room half way through, and straight away said "Is that a new Playstation game?". That summed it up perfectly to me - it just looks like an extended cut scene from a PS3 game, but then sometimes there's real actors in there too. To be honest, this film, in my opinion, looks pants. Or maybe I'm the odd one out here and it's actually genius... Dave

09-11-2009, 17:37	#2
Iggyman Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 982	It certainly looks like low-brow, dumbed down, badly written, typical James Cameron rubbish - but it's unfair to judge it based on a trailer.

09-11-2009, 17:43	#3
guitardave Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Manchester Services: Sky+ HD, Sky Broadband Posts: 487	Maybe it's good, story-wise, obviously I don't know that yet, but it's the Playstation-y look of it that puts me off, the fact that it looks like a game and not a movie. But hey, too each his/her own!

09-11-2009, 18:52	#4
UltraViolet Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Britain Posts: 5,513	Some reviewer called it Dances With Wolves in Space. Fits well from the look of it.

09-11-2009, 18:56	#5
Al_T3D Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 392	Keep saying it's gonna be crap, it can only equal or surpass your expectations.

09-11-2009, 20:30	#6
mark01942 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	Saw the trailer on the BIG screen t'other day, my immediate reaction? Three Words: Computer Generated Bllks I'll pass...

09-11-2009, 20:36	#7
Al_T3D Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 392	CGI done well though. If it was CGI badly done, fair enough, but face it, CGI is here to stay, physical fx are becoming more and more expensive, and the bigger the idea, the less practical the use of 'practical' FX will be, there is still room for both of course, and if balanced well they can produce some glorious work. What would you do to improve on the work displayed in the trailer?

09-11-2009, 23:51	#10
rivercity_rules Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Services: Awaiting Diana Vickers Album. The True Winner Of X Factor! Posts: 16,091	I was pretty underwhelmed by the Trailer to be honest. I want to see it to see what all the fuss is about, but I just can't see that trailer turning it into the massive hit that I keep reading it's going to be. It looked like a load of nonsense.

10-11-2009, 01:40	#14
mark01942 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	The thing I have against CGI is that it looks cheap. You can picture a bunch of geeks, tappity tapping at some bl**dy keyboard, then patting 'emselves on the back as to how real it all looks (it DOESN'T!!!) Compare this to, ooh, say "Space:1999". YES we know they are models, but at least we can be grateful for all the time, effort (and SKILL) that went into creating them. I often say that a lot of trailers look just like ps2 games. Sadly, this becomes more true each passing day

10-11-2009, 09:56	#16
bad-beat Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 420	The CGI in King Kong was absolutely terrible.

10-11-2009, 11:26	#17
PJ68 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,699	typical james cameron rubbish?? terminator, terminator 2, titanic, the abyss, aliens.... i am very anti CGI and i hated the first cheap looking trailer BUT i am willing to give JC the benefit of the doubt. i thought titanic sounded rubbish - admittedly a lot of people think it is cheesy but i find it 'pure cinema'. there are some films where you just have to let yourself go with them and that is one of them JC has yet to make a film i can't watch again and again - aliens, titanic and T2 are in my all time top 10 i saw the teaser on the big screen and i did actually think 'hmmm looks a bit better' i think on a big screen with good 3D you'll soon forget the CGI (it isn't ALL cgi either..) and immerse yourself in it i have gone from dreading it to being desperate to see it i have even booked the IMAX for the first time

10-11-2009, 11:48	#19
Granny72 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 859	Going by the trailer it is basically Dances with Wolves in space with aliens and a recycling of the marines from Aliens. Halo 'borrowed' the latter for its game so any CGI fest like this just looks like a glossy Xbox game intro. At least the Avatar game devs didn't have to strain themselves too much in adapting it.

10-11-2009, 12:23	#20
Moony Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Cheshire Services: O2 Broadband Posts: 1,778	Most people on this thread seem to be assuming the CGI has been designed to look like real life and failed. Perhaps the CGI has intentionally been given a more fantasy/cartoony look. It wouldnt be the first movie to do so. If the CGI has been intentionally designed to look like that - it makes no more sense to criticise it for "not looking real" than it would be to criticise Toy Story for the same reason.

10-11-2009, 14:10	#21
gorgeousgirl Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Services: ♥ ♥ ♥ Posts: 2,030	I keep hearing that this film is going to be the next big thing or whatever but the trailer just isn't selling it for me, that little clip will no way get me to pay to see a film i know nothing about.

10-11-2009, 14:39	#22
saadali Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 2	I am agree with ultra violet views about this

10-11-2009, 15:29	#23
PJ68 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,699	cgi should be used sparingly, for just things it is impossible to do with models or stuntmen, and NOT for things like people fighting ot car crashes or animals. it always looks so fake when used like that funny we now long for the days for indiana jones first 3 adverntures with their real locations and stunts

10-11-2009, 15:33	#24
kingjeremy Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,164	Reminds me a bit of when final fantasy came out, huge hype about the so called CGI photo realistic characters etc, people talking like real actors would soon become obsolete, then the film went and bombed lol Hollywood's latest fad seems to be 3D, i'm sure it's great at times in the cinema but it seems to me that it's something that really doesn't translate all that well to home viewing.