Yes. The lighting's still off. The skin of the face looks like plastic from that distance.
James Cameron's Avatar: Discuss/Countdown
- Thread starter T'Baio
- Start date
Yes. The lighting's still off. The skin of the face looks like plastic from that distance.
Stephen Lang is not real. He's just a CGI creation made for the use of the film.
Well, I don't see it, but my background and interests are in editing, sound design, and music, not in cinematography or visual effects.
I'm primarily a visual guy, so no worries. 
He does get it pretty damn close though. Flesh is incredibly hard to recreate because it's not a single, uniform material. It's made up of many, incredibly thin, very different tissue layers that aren't entirely opaque, stretched over bone, veins and arteries, muscle, and fat.
At the moment, even the best CG can only try to emulate the appearance of skin, but not recreate it in a way that's economical for filming. At least not without the use of an entire mainframe.
He does get it pretty damn close though. Flesh is incredibly hard to recreate because it's not a single, uniform material. It's made up of many, incredibly thin, very different tissue layers that aren't entirely opaque, stretched over bone, veins and arteries, muscle, and fat.
At the moment, even the best CG can only try to emulate the appearance of skin, but not recreate it in a way that's economical for filming. At least not without the use of an entire mainframe.
Here's a neat new picture of Col Quaritch (Stephen Lang) in his AMP suit:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44/mirrored/hr_Avatar_42.jpg
Can you spot what is CG and what is not?
Uh, yeah. It's actually kind of obvious.
LOL, a little late to the party? That was posted at least a week ago.
That's OK. Welcome!Ok guys/gals... Still not sure if you have a 3D capable theater showing Avatar near you? Here are a couple of links to help you find the optimal viewing experience for the three different 3D systems Avatar will be shown with:
- IMAX locator
NOTE: there two very different kinds IMAX 3D:
* Film projected on full IMAX screen
* Digital projected on smaller screen (also called 'Liemax' by its detractors, due to the lower quality)
To verify if you have IMAX or 'LieMAX' in your area, you can use this site: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS311US311&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=liemax+locator
- RealD 3D Theater locator
- Dolby Digital 3D finder (note that is shows non-3D digital theaters, so make sure that you look for the 3D symbol)
If you have multiple of these systems in your area, which one is the best? From what I have been able to observe from other forums discussing this, the order of preference is usually agreed to be the following:
1. IMAX film 3D
2. RealD 3D
3. IMAX digital 3D, Dolby 3D
Avatar should look great in either, though...
- IMAX locator
NOTE: there two very different kinds IMAX 3D:
* Film projected on full IMAX screen
* Digital projected on smaller screen (also called 'Liemax' by its detractors, due to the lower quality)
To verify if you have IMAX or 'LieMAX'
in your area, you can use this site: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS311US311&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=liemax+locator- RealD 3D Theater locator
- Dolby Digital 3D finder (note that is shows non-3D digital theaters, so make sure that you look for the 3D symbol)
If you have multiple of these systems in your area, which one is the best? From what I have been able to observe from other forums discussing this, the order of preference is usually agreed to be the following:
1. IMAX film 3D
2. RealD 3D
3. IMAX digital 3D, Dolby 3D
Avatar should look great in either, though...
Last edited:
I just got my tickets for a 3D showing on Thursday
I'm really looking forward to seeing it.
I'm really looking forward to seeing it.
Avatar just got nominated for a couple of Golden Globes, including Best Picture (Drama), Best Director, Best Score and Best Song:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/15/67th-golden-globes-nominations-announced/
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/15/67th-golden-globes-nominations-announced/
Ok guys/gals... Still not sure if you have a 3D capable theater showing Avatar near you? Here are a couple of links to help you find the optimal viewing experience for the three different 3D systems Avatar will be shown with:
- IMAX locator
NOTE: there two very different kinds IMAX 3D:
* Film projected on full IMAX screen
* Digital projected on smaller screen (also called 'Liemax' by its detractors, due to the lower quality)
To verify if you have IMAX or 'LieMAX'
- RealD 3D Theater locator
- Dolby Digital 3D finder (note that is shows non-3D digital theaters, so make sure that you look for the 3D symbol)
If you have multiple of these systems in your area, which one is the best? From what I have been able to observe from other forums discussing this, the order of preference is usually agreed to be the following:
1. IMAX film 3D
2. RealD 3D
3. IMAX digital 3D, Dolby 3D
Avatar should look great in either, though...
so the one at south miami Sunset Place which Ive been to a couple times(& the only one Ive ever been to) is a fake. Im not surprised. I always thought it was big but not exactly immersive.
if I decide to watch Avatar in 3d that would probably be my only option but that might not be a bad thing, maybe the 3d experience wont be so nauseating for me with a smaller screen.
davejames,
If you have a choice, definitely see it in 3D first... According to reviews the 3D is VERY well done. Not headache-inducing at all. Mostly subtle things to pull you into the scenes. Everyone is raving about the 3D, so I think it is a safe bet.
As long as you sit further back, you should be fine. The biggest problem with IMAX digital 3D is apparently the lack of resolution for the screen size. Sitting toward the back should alleviate that problem.
If you have a choice, definitely see it in 3D first... According to reviews the 3D is VERY well done. Not headache-inducing at all. Mostly subtle things to pull you into the scenes. Everyone is raving about the 3D, so I think it is a safe bet.
so the one at south miami Sunset Place which Ive been to a couple times(& the only one Ive ever been to) is a fake. Im not surprised. I always thought it was big but not exactly immersive.
if I decide to watch Avatar in 3d that would probably be my only option but that might not be a bad thing, maybe the 3d experience wont be so nauseating for me with a smaller screen.
As long as you sit further back, you should be fine. The biggest problem with IMAX digital 3D is apparently the lack of resolution for the screen size. Sitting toward the back should alleviate that problem.
What's nice about the 3D used in "Avatar" and in some other recent 3D movies (like A Christmas Carol) is that it's more depth than it is "jutting things into the camera."
Instead of making it look like characters and objects are floating over the first few rows of seats they make it look more like the movie screen is a window into the movie-world.
Instead of making it look like characters and objects are floating over the first few rows of seats they make it look more like the movie screen is a window into the movie-world.
Armond White finally threw in his two-cents ... doubt anybody will be surprised with his review...
http://www.nypress.com/article-20710-blue-in-the-face.html
He just couldn't help calling Michael Bay a genius and saying how much better Transformers is than James Cameron's movie.
http://www.nypress.com/article-20710-blue-in-the-face.html
He just couldn't help calling Michael Bay a genius and saying how much better Transformers is than James Cameron's movie.
I had no idea who he was, admittedly, (I am not very knowledgeable?) so I wikipediaed the guy and got this assertion, under 'Criticism':
Judging from the review I just read, that seems fair. 'Read' is a generous term here. I know my prose has a loose concept of grammar and tends to run on and on in overlong sentences (that abruptly and for no reason end in parentheses - seriously, how did I graduate from a school with this nonsense writing style?), with reams of completely unnecessary big words hurled in to make me seem smart...
But this crap is next to unreadable. No, honestly, that sort of prose should not get published. It should be sent back for rewrites until it gets some goddamn clarity. This isn't a criticism of the content, but the style is just awful. It's jargon-jargon-jargon, no flourishes, no wit, no clarity, just a torrential flood of words and references until backwards reels the mind.
Well that seems to be his prerogative. Reviews are great for Star Trek, so he writes a negative one. Everyone hates GI Joe and Transformers, so he writes positive reviews. He praises The Hurt Locker, but later on other critics love it, so he takes it back and calls the movie overrated.
I guess he still has a job because of his entertainment value, not that anyone would ever take what he has to say seriously.
I don't read the Rotten Tomatoes boards, but apparently when Star Trek was flourishing at 100% positive, they were predicting Armond White would be the first negative review... and he was!
Welcome to the wonderful world of Armond White. Try searching for his review of The Dark Knight if you want more laughs. This guy is a gut buster sometimes...
I'd rather not.
I don't mind someone trolling reviews for attention like that, nor do I mind lathering it in pretention (fair dues on both calls), but please, do so in a manner that is fun and witty to read. -_- That is just a painful contortion of the English language.
I don't mind someone trolling reviews for attention like that, nor do I mind lathering it in pretention (fair dues on both calls), but please, do so in a manner that is fun and witty to read. -_- That is just a painful contortion of the English language.
Yeah this tells me all I need to know.
I haven't seen the film yet so I cannot comment, but I have listened to the score and that nomination was well-deserved.
Similar threads
- Poll
