Zeliard said:Of course you're always going to be able to tell that sort of thing is CGI. It's demonstrating things that don't exist. You brain is automatically telling you "this isn't real" as you're watching it, no matter what the level of artistry and design behind it is.
Busty said:Having seen the toy design on Chud it only serves to reinforce my belief that Avatar will go down in history as the worst marketed 'event film' in history.
At best bizarre. At worst just laughable.
We've seen most of the films' big designs (Pandora creatures, mech suit, now Jake's Avatar) in leaked form one way or another. I still can't believe the first official shots we got from this film were from Ubisoft's tie in game. And they weren't very flattering.
I'm sure the design of Jake's Avatar works within the confines of the film's general aesthetic but seeing the design for the first time out of context as an action figure from Mattel just look ridiculous.
.....the brown laced shoes just look ludicrous on the toy.
I've no doubt that the basic design of Jake's avatar will look like the figure in the film, but in the film it will 'fit in' instead of looking like something from World of Warcraft modelling in a GAP catalogue.
Rindain said:I saw the footage at Comic-Con.
The actual character looks so much better than that toy. The toy's proportions are wrong, the hair is wrong, the face in general just doesn't look right.
Wait until the trailer.
Zenith said:Don't buy it. By that logic anything new you haven't seen before would look fake even if it was in real life.
I can think of lots of movies that showed fantastical things that were indistinguishable in detail from the rocks they were placed next to. "It's CGI" is triggered by subtle things like incorrect lighting, moving with no weight, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of marketing for Avatar Day. They just don't expect people to walk into the theater and be like "hey, I can see 15 minutes of this movie i know nothing about - for free!", do they?the walrus said:FOX is absolutely clueless. If they think AVATAR day is going to be enough to get the hype train started, they are sadly mistaken, considering that the vast majority of the public has no clue that AVATAR day is even happening, or what the fuck AVATAR is even about.
SpeedingUptoStop said:I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of marketing for Avatar Day. They just don't expect people to walk into the theater and be like "hey, I can see 15 minutes of this movie i know nothing about - for free!", do they?
Karma Kramer said:No creature in Avatar is going to look so real that you think it is real... just think of Gollum, and how although you know he is fake, because he seems so real it doesn't matter as long as you let yourself get into the story/film
I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here by gauging fanboy reactions across two different films, different genres .. the kind of reaction of Venom (SM3) still remains to be topped and we know how the movie turned out .. :lol Fanboy reaction != success or failure, it guarantees that fanboys will either attend or not attend the midnight screening.Cheebs said:As am I, but I am just saying Iron Man 2's footage at comic con has much more of a universally strong reaction and better buzz, which I doubt even Sculli would disagree with. There is nothing wrong with a decent amount of people not being impressed with the Avatar footage, it doesn't have to diminish your hype for it if not everyone thought it looked super impressive. But people trying to deny the critics who saw it aren't valid is just sad.
Karma Kramer said:No creature in Avatar is going to look so real that you think it is real... just think of Gollum, and how although you know he is fake, because he seems so real it doesn't matter as long as you let yourself get into the story/film
Zenith said:but Gollum looked like he was made out of clay. i would argue the dragons looked better. Humanoids are just so dashed hard to do.
jett said:![]()
ILM ftw. WETA cries bitter tears.
duckroll said:So Aug 21 is two weeks away and there still isn't a list of screens worldwide confirmed to be carrying the 15min shit? Why do I have this feeling that Fox just thought of the idea right before Comicon, and started arranging deals then? if that's the case, I expect tons of places around the world to not bother with this since it's too soon and there were no plans made before hand.
Didn't they say "every Imax theater nationwide" too?duckroll said:So Aug 21 is two weeks away and there still isn't a list of screens worldwide confirmed to be carrying the 15min shit? Why do I have this feeling that Fox just thought of the idea right before Comicon, and started arranging deals then? if that's the case, I expect tons of places around the world to not bother with this since it's too soon and there were no plans made before hand.
Cheebs said:ILM deserves a lot of credit. Star Wars Episode 1 is 10 years old yet the cgi (the actual quality of the look, not the actual characters being good) still holds up.
Scullibundo said:Slightly higher res:
![]()
Though I still don't believe this is the official teaser poster. Especially when released in this res on the interwebs.
SketchTheArtist said:This is the official teaser poster. Doesn't represent very well the beauty of this character in the film.
Reminds me of this:Scullibundo said:Slightly higher res:
![]()
Though I still don't believe this is the official teaser poster. Especially when released in this res on the interwebs.
ILM is one of the best special effects companies out there. But they're probably also the priciest.Cheebs said:ILM deserves a lot of credit. Star Wars Episode 1 is 10 years old yet the cgi (the actual quality of the look, not the actual characters being good) still holds up.
Scullibundo said:Slightly higher res:
![]()
Though I still don't believe this is the official teaser poster. Especially when released in this res on the interwebs.
Ether_Snake said:That looks awful. The proportions are REALLY weird. Makes it look like bad CG. If this is the official poster, ouch.
Poimandres said:Umm, she's an alien?
Doesn't look too bad to me, but certainly not the greatest poster I've ever seen.
Still waiting on that trailer...
Jibril said:It's a he . It's supposed to be Sam Worthington's avatar.
SpeedingUptoStop said:This is seriously some of the worst marketing ever. If they didn't throw down Avatar Day, I'd be shitting all over this.
It could be a Christopher Nolan film and I'd say that poster is awful.gdt5016 said:I think we can still shit on it quite a bit.
Jibril said:Wait, what?
explain please. :lol
SpeedingUptoStop said:This is seriously some of the worst marketing ever. If they didn't throw down Avatar Day, I'd be shitting all over this.
ToyMachine228 said:I'm blind in one eye and therefore 3D stuff doesn't work for me. Fuck you Cameron!
FirewalkR said:That poster's official, just check the movie's Facebook page, they put it up yesterday. I think Sculli's "higher-res" is the same they got there.
Which would be suicidal. You have to build up marketing over a while. Look at the amazing marketing for Dark Knight, it built up viral stuff for nearly a year in advance.Krev said:I think Fox's 'strategy' is to spend all their money at the last minute with a massive assault on all marketing avenues. Chances are that this film will be totally inescapable in the last month leading up to its release.
Cheebs said:Which would be suicidal.
They both use motion captured actors. For some scenes they shot actors in mo-cap suits on live-action backgrounds, which is the same thing that was done with Davy Jones.shuyin_ said:The Davy Jones - Avatar CG comparison is irrelevant and wrong.
IIRC, for Davy Jones they had a real actor who filmed all the scenes involving Davy Jones and they applied CG in post-processing over that actor. Avatar on the other hand has fully CG characters, correct? It's a totally different thing.