Twilight, you're my hero! 
AVATAR Trailer is here!
- Thread starter Chris_Johnston
- Start date
The CG certainly looks ... very CG.
It's just a teaser, of course, but I'm getting way more of a cartoonish vibe than I imagined the film having.
And I mean cartoonish not only in the quality of the CG, which I'm sure in the end will be remarkable (though it looks pretty standard in the teaser) - but also in the aesthetic. "Islands" floating in the sky? Sparkling Na'vi that look like fairies from a kid's movie?
If significant fractions of the film are going to be 100% CG, that CG really needs to be "revolutionary" and "photo-real" as Cameron said it would be ... otherwise you feel like you're watching an animated film (and that's fine! But don't bill it as a live action film!).
We'll see - it's just a teaser - and it certainly looks extremely creative. I'll be there opening day regardless.
It's just a teaser, of course, but I'm getting way more of a cartoonish vibe than I imagined the film having.
And I mean cartoonish not only in the quality of the CG, which I'm sure in the end will be remarkable (though it looks pretty standard in the teaser) - but also in the aesthetic. "Islands" floating in the sky? Sparkling Na'vi that look like fairies from a kid's movie?
If significant fractions of the film are going to be 100% CG, that CG really needs to be "revolutionary" and "photo-real" as Cameron said it would be ... otherwise you feel like you're watching an animated film (and that's fine! But don't bill it as a live action film!).
We'll see - it's just a teaser - and it certainly looks extremely creative. I'll be there opening day regardless.
Last edited:
Okay, now that is a beautiful looking trailer. I like.
I am not impressed by this trailer. The trailer is clearly trying to sell this movie with amazing images, but unfortunately audiences have seen these kinds of movies with vast CGI landscapes before. The visual effects are in no way revolutionary, at least when viewed in 2D.
Still, this is James Cameron so I am one hundred percent convinced that this will be a great and epic movie with an awesome story. I just wished the trailer would've focussed on the story instead of the visuals because this will leave theatre audiences scratching their heads.
Still, this is James Cameron so I am one hundred percent convinced that this will be a great and epic movie with an awesome story. I just wished the trailer would've focussed on the story instead of the visuals because this will leave theatre audiences scratching their heads.
About the CGI. James Cameron mentioned in interviews that when he saw Gollum, he knew this movie could be made. It seems to me that like Gollum or the Prawns in District 9, that in order for any CGI character to look photo-realistic, it should be places in a realistic environment. LOTR was largely filmed on real stages and District 9 was filmed on location. Only then does CGI really blend in. When you go totally CGI it just looks like an animated film.
The most impressive CG in the entire trailer:
The Na'vi's feet in the shot of Worthington's Avatar sitting up on the hospital bed thing. Now THOSE are freakin' photo-real.
Scotty is right: modern audiences are no longer impressed by shots of vast beautiful CG landscapes. They're simply not impressive anymore, because everybody knows how they're made, we've seen a million iterations of them before, and we know immediately that what we're looking at is totally fake.
So I hope (and I think this will turn out to be true) that Cameron isn't going for some "CG spectacle" here. Because the term is now an oxymoron. You can't really impress anybody anymore with it. Jurassic Park was the last film to really do it (and maybe Gollum in The Two Towers).
But it IS Cameron, who has always delivered absolutely brilliant storytelling. So I remain excited. I'd watch a Cameron kid's cartoon any day.
The Na'vi's feet in the shot of Worthington's Avatar sitting up on the hospital bed thing. Now THOSE are freakin' photo-real.
Scotty is right: modern audiences are no longer impressed by shots of vast beautiful CG landscapes. They're simply not impressive anymore, because everybody knows how they're made, we've seen a million iterations of them before, and we know immediately that what we're looking at is totally fake.
So I hope (and I think this will turn out to be true) that Cameron isn't going for some "CG spectacle" here. Because the term is now an oxymoron. You can't really impress anybody anymore with it. Jurassic Park was the last film to really do it (and maybe Gollum in The Two Towers).
But it IS Cameron, who has always delivered absolutely brilliant storytelling. So I remain excited. I'd watch a Cameron kid's cartoon any day.
The shot of the Na'vi girl looking at those floating squids did impress me. The gleam in her eyes and her facial movements looked very real.
I do not think bringing this trailer out the week after District 9 was great timing. District 9 feels way more real to me than what I just watched.
But whatever, I am just picky because the film has the "GREATEST CGI EVER" hype, I would watch an 8 hour James Cameron movie about a security guard's least eventful shift ever.
But whatever, I am just picky because the film has the "GREATEST CGI EVER" hype, I would watch an 8 hour James Cameron movie about a security guard's least eventful shift ever.
That T-Rex running after the jeep in Jurassic Park still looks more photo-realistic than anything in this trailer.
Let's be clear: THIS is nearly photo-real CG
Nothing in the Avatar trailer looked even remotely photo-real (except for the feet in the medical bay shot) - NOT because of the amount of money you spend (District 9 cost $30M, Avatar costs $350M), but because of how you treat the shot.
Obviously Cameron knows a shitload more about this than I do. But he specifically said that the film would be purely photo-real. And the teaser looks like the trailer for a Pixar film.
Edit: one minor complaint about the trailer - No Sigourney?
Nothing in the Avatar trailer looked even remotely photo-real (except for the feet in the medical bay shot) - NOT because of the amount of money you spend (District 9 cost $30M, Avatar costs $350M), but because of how you treat the shot.
Obviously Cameron knows a shitload more about this than I do. But he specifically said that the film would be purely photo-real. And the teaser looks like the trailer for a Pixar film.
Edit: one minor complaint about the trailer - No Sigourney?
The thing that probably is truly revolutionary about this film is the way it was shot. Cameron devised a way of shooting in a vritual world on a green screen set with special cameras. A lot of filmmakers that visited the set were blown away by it. The problem is, that the end result is pretty much the same so the audiences won't see the difference. And they won't get why this movie should cost 350 million (or 240 or whatever number is right) when a movie like District 9 gets the job done for only 30 million.
There are, of course, two major caveats to all of these comments:
1. It's a teaser.
2. We haven't seen it in 3D on a big screen. It may look brilliant.
But seriously, if you were to cut out those few shots of Worthington - you could have EASILY convinced me that this was a trailer for a Pixar remake of Fern Gully.
1. It's a teaser.
2. We haven't seen it in 3D on a big screen. It may look brilliant.
But seriously, if you were to cut out those few shots of Worthington - you could have EASILY convinced me that this was a trailer for a Pixar remake of Fern Gully.
This is completely absurd. The exact same thing could be said of paintings.
Wow!!!! Amazing...
IMO the only things that look a bit iffy is the some of the closeups of the Navi faces.
But other closeups (such as the first peek at the female Navi through the branches) look incredibly good.
Otherwise, holy cow!
IMO the only things that look a bit iffy is the some of the closeups of the Navi faces.
But other closeups (such as the first peek at the female Navi through the branches) look incredibly good.
Otherwise, holy cow!
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Wow!!!! Amazing...
IMO the only things that look a bit iffy is the some of the closeups of the Navi faces.
But other closeups (such as the first peek at the female Navi through the branches) look incredibly good.
Otherwise, holy cow!
Yep...I agree totally. I agree that some of the NAVI faces looked CGIee, but I thought the same thing about Jackson's KONG before it came out, and I thought Kong ended up looking cool in the final product...
Rob
Similar threads
- Poll
