AVATAR Trailer is here!

[trevanian]

Well...that's because they are real.

Ok, examine this:

The top shot is DEFINITELY a CGI person. I am convinced of that one. The bottom one I'm not sure either way. I couldn't say.

But answer this: Why would humans be CGI sometimes and real other times? If one is fake (and I'm certain on a few shots) then why not the others?
.

Same reason there is a CG Eastwood in SPACE COWBOYS and a real one, for facilitating realization of different environments. SC was mostly minatures, but there was really good cg as well.

The CG characters are all just the aliens, the stuff I've read backs that up. Check a few vfx sites like vfxblog to find a link to vfxplanet (dif URL) that'll give you a few solid info sources.

 

[trevanian]

Honest to God, sometimes I think the bug at the end of MEN IN BLACK is still the best CG creature ever in terms of visual credibility

What about the Prawns in District 9?

(^All CGI.)

I haven't seen the movie, but if that gorgeous image you posted moves as well as I hope, I will be THRILLED!

 

[Gepard]

I haven't seen the movie, but if that gorgeous image you posted moves as well as I hope, I will be THRILLED!

The Prawns are amazing. Perfect lighting, animation, integration; they're just there, on set, being filmed. It's awesome.

I don't know if you've seen the VFS article on the effects or not, but here it is.

 

[TK421]

I posted this so people could have an opinion if her face looks realistic. I think it does, look at the lips and skin, if it wasn't for the bigger eyes I would say it was makeup. Looks real enough to me, even up close, that's a 1080 HD still

Meh, looks totally fake to me.

A CGI mask on top, blended into a real enough mouth and chin on the bottom. They were doing that with The Mummy 10 years ago.

 

[SeerSGB]

You, I've reached a point with CGI is that I don't care if it's stylized (Fake) or photo realistic. As long as it's attached to a good solid story, and it works for the story being told, then that's all that matters. Not everything needs to look as "real".

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I haven't seen the movie, but if that gorgeous image you posted moves as well as I hope, I will be THRILLED!

The Prawns are amazing. Perfect lighting, animation, integration; they're just there, on set, being filmed. It's awesome.

I don't know if you've seen the VFS article on the effects or not, but here it is.

I have my (not so minor) criticisms of D9 ... but the visceral realism of the aliens is not one of them. The Prawns are, without question, incredibly realistic in design and appearance on screen. Their presence is a true triumph of "cinemagic."

As for Avatar ... I have to say ... its "aliens" aren't nearly as palpable as D9. Again, if the story is fantastic, it simply won't matter a whole lot. But for a film that advertised itself as a "revolution" ... well ... as far as the trailer is concerned, a "revolution" it is not.

 

[T'Baio]

I posted this so people could have an opinion if her face looks realistic. I think it does, look at the lips and skin, if it wasn't for the bigger eyes I would say it was makeup. Looks real enough to me, even up close, that's a 1080 HD still

A CGI mask on top, blended into a real enough mouth and chin on the bottom.

It's completely CGI, not CGI blended with anything.

I think the image is remarkable and borderline photo-realistic. We just know that it's not, and that it could not be, real.

*shrug* People like to bitch.

 

[melancholymecha]

^Im telling ya, its the eyes! they're so huge & glassy. It makes Jake's avatar look weird too. When they squint or close them a bit it doesnt look so bad.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

Well, the Na'vi obviously have some feline DNA in 'em.

Actually, I just came back from District 9, and I was a little shocked at how Harryhausen-ish a few of the Prawn & mecha movements were.
(Also, a bit too over-the-top in the bodily fluids dept., but that's just me)

But I'm absolutely stunned by the creature design in Avatar! I've been going through the trailer frame-by-frame and studying things like the dental work on the forest predator and dragons, and the beautiful wing configuration on the dragons.

I had a sneaking suspicion who was responsible, so I just now looked it up on IMDb, and yep, I was right!
None other than Mr. Wayne Douglas Barlowe!

 

[Hyperspace05]

Some hi-res screencaps of Navi faces from the trailer:

(due to their size and hotlink policies I am only linking)
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144243&stc=1&d=1250785922
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144244&stc=1&d=1250787366
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144245&stc=1&d=1250787374 (this one, particularly when in motion, looks extremely 'real' to me)

 

[Joy]

^Im telling ya, its the eyes! they're so huge & glassy. It makes Jake's avatar look weird too. When they squint or close them a bit it doesnt look so bad.

Yup, that's exactly the problem. They look soulless.

And I really don't understand how this could still be a problem for CG-makers, after the AMAZING work done with Davy Jones's eyes.

Joy

 

[Tom Servo]

I haven't seen the movie, but if that gorgeous image you posted moves as well as I hope, I will be THRILLED!

The Prawns are amazing. Perfect lighting, animation, integration; they're just there, on set, being filmed. It's awesome.

I don't know if you've seen the VFS article on the effects or not, but here it is.

For most of District Nine the Prawns were great, but there were still some shots where things looked...off. Not a knock, on the film, which I loved, but just saying.

I almost think that the reason some people are saying these images look fake, isn't because they aren't photo real, but because they are so beautiful and surreal in their appearance, that it's almost like we cannot accept that they are real, and the brain almost automatically kicks into THAT CGI mode.

In District Nine especially, things were made to looks gritty, dingy, and down to earth, not fantastical and colorful as seen here.

Also, Im positive that these are NOT the finished shots. I mean look at even the first Star Trek trailer, not the initial teaser. That trailer had a few effects errors, and shots that were off, and that stuff was fixed before the film was released.

 

[davejames]

Some hi-res screencaps of Navi faces from the trailer:

(due to their size and hotlink policies I am only linking)
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144243&stc=1&d=1250785922
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144244&stc=1&d=1250787366
http://forums.3dtotal.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=144245&stc=1&d=1250787374 (this one, particularly when in motion, looks extremely 'real' to me)

Agreed about that last shot. I've gotten to see the trailer a few more times, and the CGI is a lot stronger than I thought at first glance.

What I think people are getting hung up on is the slightly cartoonish DESIGN of the aliens. That and the cartoony blue color is making them think the CGI is a lot worse than it really is.

Not to mention the fact the entire alien WORLD looks like something from a 90s animated movie. lol

 

[Gepard]

I had a sneaking suspicion who was responsible, so I just now looked it up on IMDb, and yep, I was right!
None other than Mr. Wayne Douglas Barlowe!

Wayne Barlowe? That's awesome.

 

[TK421]

You make a good point.

Everything is too clean. Dirt, grit and harsher lighting would go a long way.

 

[FordSVT]

The top shot is DEFINITELY a CGI person. I am convinced of that one. The bottom one I'm not sure either way. I couldn't say.

But answer this: Why would humans be CGI sometimes and real other times? If one is fake (and I'm certain on a few shots) then why not the others?

That's the question I can't answer.

You can be convinced of that, but I think you're wrong; the reflection in his faceplate is digital, and I think it's frakking with the image enough to make him look fake. That's a real guy there, standing in front of a bluescreen wearing a visor that's reflecting nothing. Looks to me like the level of post-processing is convincing you the whole shot is synthetic. The same thing happened for me with the Star Wars prequels; lots of elements I thought were CGI were actually models and props processed until they looked fake as hell.

Pretty much any time you ever see a Clone Trooper/Pilot's face behind a visor or cockpit glass. Could be real, could be fake, but sure as hell looks fake either way.

I dunno, it will probably look even better in 3D, but from what I've heard about the 15-20 minutes of film seen by preview audiences they weren't too thrilled with the dialogue. I've heard it's a bit wooden. And aside from the "avatars", the story certainly isn't original. Heck there was an animated movie that came out a year or two ago with a very similar premise as far as I can tell. It's a human invasion story told from the point of view of a human protagonist who has taken the side of the aliens being invaded. Yes I'm aware Cameron has been floating this idea around since 1995, but if you want we can start with the story of Pocahontas or a hundred other similar sci-fi tales.

Battle For Terra. Stylistically different, but thematically very similar. I think the environmental contamination of Earth and pressure from a military-industrial complex is even the main motivator for conquest in both movies, but I'm not positive about Avatar.

 

[davejames]

In District Nine especially, things were made to looks gritty, dingy, and down to earth, not fantastical and colorful as seen here.

Agreed. The D9 aliens were made to blend in with a dark and grungy and recognizable environment. Of COURSE they're going to look more realistic.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Battle For Terra. Stylistically different, but thematically very similar. I think the environmental contamination of Earth and pressure from a military-industrial complex is even the main motivator for conquest in both movies, but I'm not positive about Avatar.

That is probably part of it... But I'm also getting a very strong "Dances with Wolves" vibe from the story snippets I have read so far. Which is far from a bad thing, since I loved that movie.

I guess everything is derivative of something.

 

[Arpy]

I'm unimpressed with the trailer. Yes the level of technical sophistication is rare, but it has been done, and been done better. And creatively, the aliens and gizmos are uninspired and somewhat ridiculous. ...Is it wrong that I'm interested more by the plants and throwaway animals more than the humanoids and monsters? I wonder if it's because they're given so little attention most of the time (even in real life) yet are so important in really selling the outdoors.

What this movie has going for it is the quantity of effects and what I'm guessing will be its real contribution to popular cinema - these effects in 3D.

I hope they do something about these blue CG characters by the movie's release. I'm sure hearing their voices will help make them more real, but the eyes (probably the most important part of a CG character) do look more glassy than organic, and the characters overall need to be textured to look as though they were captured by the same camera that captured real human beings in the film.

Also, I think it's funny the real live human beings in the film are mistaken for CGI; what does this say how fake real people look in movies nowadays?

Overall, CGI still has a ways to go before looking utterly mistakably real. Maybe in another 5-10 years? But yeah, seeing this in 3D will be an amazing experience.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I am eager to see this. Really. An actual sci fi movie that someone imagined, and didn't remake hook line and sinker (though that may be debatable) and they put a lot of money time and effort to do it the best they could. that's enough to sell me a ticket.

However, I got a Phantom Menace feel from this trailer. The work in Phantom Menace was exquisite, especially for the time, but the problem was that there was too much of it. they did not use it sparingly or economically. With so much of it on screen your eye noticed how synthetic it was no matter how good the individual parts were. If it had been used for a select few gimmicks in the film, it would have been great, but the artifice that they tried to portray never took hold because they tried too hard. I never doubted that there was a hanger bay on Yavin 4 in Star Wars, despite the fact that most of it was dark and they just moved two ships around depending on the camera angle. It felt like a real hanger bay, and it felt BIGGER and more believable than Theed's hanger bay in Episode 1.