• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

YESSSS x2! AVATAR trailer #2 is NOW LIVE!!!! (mark ALL spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zeliard

Member
kaching said:
The "average person" in me reacts to the overall picture and feels that something is off. The techie in me realizes that that seems attributed primarily to lighting. But I didn't have to know about lighting to feel that something was not quite as convincing as other movies employing CG techniques.

The CG work here is at least very competent. The look isn't bad at all, it's just not what one would have expected, given all the hype. That the average person doesn't give "two shits" will probably come down much more to the fact that they haven't followed this movie's development and hype obsessively, rather than what they're capable of seeing in the overall picture.

The bolded is where the problem is here. You're just one person. There isn't both an "average person" in you and a techie. There can't be. There's just you.

The "average person" I'm referring to barely even knows what CGI stands for. They won't be looking at any of the minute details and won't be spending their time wondering whether or not the blue CGI aliens look "real enough", and they certainly won't ponder about the lighting. They'll just accept it as what it is.

They're the type of people who, like Bit-Bit's co-workers, look at a floating mountain and wonder "how the hell did they do that?"
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
This is a pretty good write-up:

10 Movies Avatar Unfortunately Resembles

James Cameron’s Avatar is supposed to be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. So why does it look so familiar? One of the most disappointing things about the film’s promotion so far is how derivative the film looks in the trailer that (eventually) debuted online today. And much of what we’re reminded of wasn’t even that great to begin with. To help illustrate our feeling of déjà vu, we’ve captured a few screenshots from the trailer and, where available, put them next to their older visual counterparts.

avatar-hellboy.jpg

Hellboy (2004)

The first shot that looked familiar to us is still the one we believe to be most similar to its predecessor. We don’t want to say Cameron ripped off Guillermo Del Toro, but we don’t imagine this is intended as homage, either. Likely it’s just a coincidence, but when the blue guy spoke later on in the trailer I was disappointed that he didn’t have Doug Jones’ voice.


avatar-final-fantas.jpg

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

We’re not the only ones crushed by how much this movie recalls the Final Fantasy adaptation, a movie that also was expected to be a groundbreaking piece of cinema, yet which was anything but. The sadder thing is that it doesn’t even seem as much like a video game adaptation as it does an actual video game. Hey, if we’re given joysticks in addition to the 3D glasses, we won’t complain. But we don’t think Cameron is that innovative just yet.

avatar-starship-troopers.jpg

Starship Troopers (1997)

Humans on an alien planet being eaten by nasty creatures? Obviously that’s reminiscent of a certain Paul Verhoeven movie. The military outfits even remind us of those in Starship Troopers. We’ll assume there are no references to Nazi propaganda, but we can dream. Maybe there’s at least a Nazi-like character who wishes to wipe out all the aliens in a sort of blue-person Holocaust.

avatar-dragon-riding.jpg

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

We could have gone easy on the dragon-riding shots and say they’re reminiscent of a Harry Potter movie or maybe even The Neverending Story. But honestly the first thing that came to mind was the atrocious RPG adaptation Dungeons & Dragons. We only wish we could find a screenshot of Thora Birch riding a dragon to show how bad that movie’s visuals are. Not to say Avatar’s effects aren’t better, but the reminder still depreciates our interest.

avatar-star-wars.jpg

Star Wars: Episode II -: Attack of the Clones (2002)

We’ll ignore the first Star Wars prequel, because this honestly doesn’t look that terrible. But it does look at least as bad as the latter two films in that trilogy. There’s not really a specific shot to focus on with this one. Just look at any of the busy shots, action scene or otherwise, with all that CG mess going on in the background. Is Cameron the new George Lucas? Well the romantic dialogue in Titanic is as cheesy as that of Attack of the Clones, so we’re not expecting much better from the blue person love story of Avatar. But at least Cameron hasn’t gone back and “fixed” parts of his movies, as much as he probably would prefer to with The Abyss.

avatar-delgo.jpg

Delgo (2008)

We’re giving credit to this harsh comparison to our friend Drew Taylor, of The Playlist, who Tweeted simply “Delgo, baby, Delgo,” in reply to his editor’s complaints about the Star Wars prequel similarities. We haven’t seen the infamous animated flop, but we’ll take Taylor’s word for it. How many other movies have strange humanoid creatures embracing like those two pairs above? Meanwhile, Kyle Buchanan over at Movieline compares the same shot to a more color-appropriate one from Watchmen.
avatarblues-thumb-585xauto-3908.jpg


avatar-willow.jpg

Willow (1988)

There are a number of fantasy films in which a main character is suddenly surrounded by enchanting faerie type creatures. The one that first came to mind, though, is the Lord of the Rings wannabe Willow, a movie that was groundbreaking in its effects 20 years ago but which now looks rather silly. Will there be a giant faerie queen that shows up just after this shot?

avatar-legolas.jpg

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)

It’s actually not much better that Avatar also reminds us of the real LOTR. Maybe if any of the CG creatures looked as real as Gollum, but instead this trailer called back one specific character and one specific failed sequence from Return of the King. Thanks to the archery gear, the Na’vi look like blue elves, and thanks to the seemingly bad CG, we can’t help thinking back to that embarrassing bit of special effects depicting Legolas battling an oliphaunt.

avatar-king-kong.jpg

King Kong (2005)

If Cameron isn’t the new George Lucas, he’s at least the new Peter Jackson, attempting to seem like the savior of effects-driven cinema only to really deliver a lot of disappointing CG garbage alongside his otherwise innovative visuals. This is why the shot above, despite first making us think of the groundbreaking Jurassic Park, is being compared to the stuff in Jackson’s King Kong that rip off Spielberg’s film. It looks every bit as messy and cartoonish as the prehistoric monsters of Jackson’s disappointing last movie.

avatar-district-9.jpg

District 9 (2009)

And when Avatar doesn’t simply seem like a Peter Jackson movie, it at least reminds us of a Peter Jackson production, specifically this summer’s District 9. Even though the idea of a human-alien hybrid here involves an intended operation, it is now too reminiscent of the unwanted transition in D9. It doesn’t help Avatar’s case that while different in concept there is still the moment when the hybrid character angrily wishes to leave his prison-like operating room. Does this mean D9 will at year’s end be the more original and influential, if not more groundbreaking, sci-fi movie of the year? We think we should still wait until Avatar is released to really think so. But we’re leaning towards the idea.
 

jett

D-Member
stuburns said:
I could do this, I have a cable to do so, but I want it on my PS3 so I can show it to people without fucking around with my laptop.

Open up Quicktime Player, file -> export -> as MP4. In the options choose "pass-through" for video. Done, playable on your PS3. You'll need Quicktime Pro though, I think.
 

Zeliard

Member
Speeding, wtf, you call that a good write-up? Those are some of the most arbitrary, moronic comparisons I've ever seen. :lol
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Zeliard said:
Speeding, wtf, you call that a good write-up? Those are some of the most arbitrary, moronic comparisons I've ever seen. :lol
Okay, joke's over, it's totally by the numbers "10 thing ______" that the guy pulled out of his ass for website hits, but I still wanted to see people quote the Delgo paragraph be like "hmmm, he makes a good point" .:lol

Re:phoenixDark :lol
 
DancingCactus77 said:
This review of the trailer pretty much sums up my feelings towards it.

I wonder if my fiancee will get mad at me when I take her to see the preview tomorrow. I might have to throw in 500 Days of Summer to please her.

doooo it!!! saw 500 days of summer with the girlfriend, I really really liked it, then had her sneak in with me to see district 9 right after that. Best double feature ever!
 

weehomer

Member
http://gawker.com/5341891

The Avatar Trailer Looks Like Jar Jar Binks' Family Reunion

You know that movie James Cameron has been working on for more than 10 years and spent more than $200 million dollars? Turns out it's just a bunch of blue cartoons? We feel cheated.

This thing looks faker than that stripper's third tit in Total Recall. Even the real humans look fake! Why would you do that to Zoe Saldana? Why?!

Anyway the movie is about a paralyzed American soldier who takes a job mining on a far away planet that is home to an alien race. The thing is, human's can't live on the planet, so they have to use avatars, clones of the blue-toons that are inhabited by the consciousness of the humans. Of course, our human eventually falls in love with a blue-toon and joins her people's fight to get humans to stop destroying her planet and leave. Colonialism! Environmentalism! See, District 9 isn't the only message movie.

Cameron should have learned his lesson from the Star Wars prequels: if you don't step away from the cinematic easel, you're going to end up with a canvas that is full of pretty doodles and no life. Or in this case, horny blue-toons that like to fight then make out. Well, we're glad our expectations have been lowered, so that the 3-D version might still blow us away. Don't let us down, Cameron. You probably won't have a chance to make it up to us until your next movie in 2025.
 

123rl

Member
I like it. It looks and sounds good, it's James Fucking Cameron. If you don't understand why a new sci-fi film from Cameron is a big deal then you have never watched Aliens.

The CG was fine considering there's still at least another 4-5 months of production work to do. lol at that comparison though...stupidest thing I've read this week. There was a monster in some film and there's a monster with the same name in Avatar. Thisfilmigenericshit.com
 
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Okay, joke's over, it's totally by the numbers "10 thing ______" that the guy pulled out of his ass for website hits, but I still wanted to see people quote the Delgo paragraph be like "hmmm, he makes a good point" .:lol

Re:phoenixDark :lol

Yeah. It's more like "10 movies Avatar share the colour blue with."
 
I knew this thread would turn out like this. Personally, the trailer showed me exactly what I expected to see, I don't know what you people were expecting.
 

Arde5643

Member
Wow, this looks pretty fake, which is probably a really bad thing for an epic budget movie like this.

Cameron should've asked Neil Blonkampf on CGI techniques since this supposedly juggernaut of all FX of a movie looks much worse than D9.

I swear I thought the trailer was about an animated feature.
 

Alucard

Banned
Honestly, there was no way this movie was going to live up to the utterly ridiculous hype that has preceded it. It's going to be a movie, like a lot of other movies, and not something that is going to change the face of the known universe, as it was hyped to do.
 
Look, the movie looks good, but why do some of you have to insist so stubbornly that it's THE technological marvel of the decade?

Stuff like this just doesn't look that great:

snapshot20090820104535.jpg


The hands and arms are in an awkward position. The skin looks flat and inorganic, like a texture in a video game. Even the loincloth lacks any real weight to it.

Are these details smaller than the big picture? Sure, but your mind notices stuff like that, adds them up, and decides if it keeps you "in the movie" or not.
 

shuri

Banned
Aliens 2 was 25 years ago. Cameron's ramblings at E3 was just a taste of what happened to him since Titanic. The man lost his mind.
 

border

Member
I'm not sure what is more mindblowing:

District 9 only cost 30 million dollars to make

OR

Avatar somehow cost 260 million dollars to mak
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Battersea Power Station said:
Look, the movie looks good, but why do some of you have to insist so stubbornly that it's THE technological marvel of the decade?

Stuff like this just doesn't look that great:

snapshot20090820104535.jpg


The hands and arms are in an awkward position. The skin looks flat and inorganic, like a texture in a video game. Even the loincloth lacks any real weight to it.

Are these details smaller than the big picture? Sure, but your mind notices stuff like that, adds them up, and decides if it keeps you "in the movie" or not.
3D will get you the weight in the loincloth you're looking for.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Zeliard said:
The bolded is where the problem is here. You're just one person. There isn't both an "average person" in you and a techie. There can't be. There's just you.

The "average person" I'm referring to barely even knows what CGI stands for. They won't be looking at any of the minute details and won't be spending their time wondering whether or not the blue CGI aliens look "real enough", and they certainly won't ponder about the lighting. They'll just accept it as what it is.

They're the type of people who, like Bit-Bit's co-workers, look at a floating mountain and wonder "how the hell did they do that?"
Here we go with the pedantic again. I'm not really two people? Really? That's a relief.

Try to understand that my post was a way of describing a process, the layers of reaction involved for ANY random person, whether average or something else. I watch the footage, I react to it in it's final form first based on how convincing it is to me, how immersive it is, regardless of what battery of techniques was employed to generate it's various component parts.

Bottom line is, I react just like the "average person" first on a visceral level, then analysis sets in to whatever degree my technical knowledge allows me deconstruct accurately.

This is no different for movies without a heavy CG component.
 

gdt

Member
gdt5016 said:
Tomorrow and Friday will be gigantic shitstorms on GAF. The Haters will scream from the rooftops, and the defenders will quote like a motherfucker.

In other words, tons of fun.

See, what did I tell you guys :p?



I'm warming up more so to the Na'vi look. Hopefully the trailer is on Inglorious Basterds tomorrow. Would love to see it with a audience.
 

SpeedingUptoStop

will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
border said:
I'm not sure what is more mindblowing:

District 9 only cost 30 million dollars to make

OR

Avatar somehow cost 260 million dollars to mak
It tooks James Cameron 6 years to have a teaser trailer for his film.

It took Christoper Nolan 6 weeks to have a teaser trailer for his film.
 

atkbob

Banned
This movie looks boring. I didn't even have enough interest to watch the whole trailer.

It seems I'm not alone with this opinion. Ava-tards = owned.
 
Most people seem to be dropping this phrase, hoping that the very mention of the term will win their argument for them. The UV does not mean that CGI humans will never be convincing, it simply means that there is a large hurtle to cross before you can get near the other side. The bottom line is, but for a few shots, this film doesn't come near convincing me that I'm looking at existing creatures. And don't say that's because aliens aren't real. That's a bullshit argument.

Busty said:
I won't put up my own impressions until I've seen the trailer a few more times but I'm surprised by how much of a backlash this trailer as generated in just a few hours.

I'm not. James Cameron arrogantly promised that we would be fooled by the effects in this film. He set himself up to be criticized when he and Weta failed to deliver on his promises. Lesson learned.

AniHawk said:
But the most of it is animated and filmed in front of a green/blue screen. It's the Toon Town part of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Why not use makeup, sets, and props? I don't get why those things apparently died in the 80s.

Good fucking question. What is it about the Navi that couldn't be accomplished with prostheses and compositing (like the Hobbits in LOTR) with limited CGI for action shots?
 

BlueWord

Member
I want this movie to be good. I want it to be really good, a classic of the genre, a film worthy of the title "A James Cameron Film".

But, frankly, this trailer does not inspire confidence. Hopefully that upcoming teaser does more to alleviate my fears.
 

Aegus

Member
Falch said:
I think a lot of people are forgetting the impact 3d will have in the cinematic experience of this movie.

I think people are forgetting that they've basically seen 1.30 minute of a 2hr plus film that still has 4 months of post production to be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom