James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)

[Kegg]

But that doesn't mean that science fiction or fantasy needs to be all about the visuals--if it were, what would we be doing with prose novels in the genre?

Naturally. But that's a part of it. And of course, visuals can be key in telling a story, so they're not mutually exclusive.

As for making hyperrealistic CGI human characters... Honestly, what would you get out of it that you couldn't get out of just filming a regular actor with a camera? We've had Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, and the others on film more times than I can count without a computer's help.

But now we could have them wholesale. This is perhaps most obvious for people of the media age - what if Anthony Hopkins had played Richard Nixon like Sam Worthington played a Na'vi?

Age comes in here too. Cameron has said in his next film with this tech, Battle Angel, will have an adult actress play a fourteen year old girl - maybe Sigourney Weaver could shave off a few decades off her age and do action roles again (we linger a bit on her avatar's introduction, and justly so - it's physicality is more than Weaver has had since, oh, the 1980s?).

Also, action movies. Who needs stunt doubles now, all manners of violence could be done without relying on snappy editing and the like.

Truly, anything goes. That is truly wondrous if this promise is realised. The fear, which is justified, that they'd feel odd or inhuman, the performances would look fake, I think has mostly been overcome by Avatar.

But it shouldn't be used to do something that a person could do just as well--and for a bit less money!

The money's needed to develop it, surely, but I am hopeful (as indicated) eventually people can make stuff like this in their basements. Imagine one actor doing several roles and each one looking different.

 

[Harvey]

Does this mean William Shatner's Julius Caesar will finally come to fruition?

"I'll play Julius Caesar. And all the other parts, too."

Too obscure?

 

[Kegg]

It's Free Enterprise. On a Star Trek forum.

If that's too obscure, what is the world coming to?

 

[Blue_Trek]

Finally saw it in 3D on a really good screen, I found it to be an excellent film going experience. Theater was packed on a Wednesday night, 3 sold out IMAX shows in a row, huge lines for both regular and IMAX. Word of mouth is spreading on this to be so busy mid week. Also there was a spontaneous applause after the movie ended. The guys in the row behind me were really into the movie by there comments, when the movie was over one of them said "now we have to wait for AVATAR 2"

Great use of 3D but it took me about twenty minutes to get used to it.
For me the acting and plot was not bad at all, I thought Zoe Saldana character was the best acted of the characters.
I guess it isn't possible for me to have the wow factor like I had in my younger years like I did for Star Wars & T2. But still it's was a cool experience, and isn't that why we go to the big screen these days, the experience we can't get at home. If we want a good stories & acting we can always rent those.

I highly recommend this movie to all Star Trek fans.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There was spontaneous applause at the end of the showing I went to, as well. It was pretty sweet.

 

[S. Gomez]

But that doesn't mean that science fiction or fantasy needs to be all about the visuals--if it were, what would we be doing with prose novels in the genre?

Naturally. But that's a part of it. And of course, visuals can be key in telling a story, so they're not mutually exclusive.

That is a fair point. But imagery and visual effects aren't always the same thing. You can get an important shot with nothing but your camera and the set, and a special effect can be nothing but the view outside a very small window in the deep background. On the other hand, an important shot might require the efforts of over a thousand digital artists and animators and a simulated camera. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't necessarily mutually inclusive either.

I agree with you about 2001; awe-inspiring, but cold. Probably why I've never bothered to buy it in any home video format. And probably why I won't bother to buy Avatar.

As for making hyperrealistic CGI human characters... Honestly, what would you get out of it that you couldn't get out of just filming a regular actor with a camera? We've had Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, and the others on film more times than I can count without a computer's help.

But now we could have them wholesale.

"Now"? Right now it apparently costs $300 million dollars. If you think that's wholesale, then there's no hope for you. (I kid, I kid.)

But yeah, I just can't see something like this being possible in a geek's basement (as much as you may want a mo-cap stage for Christmas!). And if it ever is, Hollywood will have something so far beyond it that no one will care.

 

[Kegg]

"Now"? Right now it apparently costs $300 million dollars. If you think that's wholesale, then there's no hope for you. (I kid, I kid.)

I just like working We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into conversation, even if the context is totally botched. In this sense I meant, you know, real, feasible. It might be less of a leap than going from puppets to CGI creatures, but in terms of facial manipulation it's a similar step forward. And hell, what bout uncastable roles from novels, who are so very specifically defined? Can do.

Do we need beefcake actors for these roles anymore? Even pretty ones? There's a thought. Your CGI computer can give that flabby character actor the physique of Schwarzenegger and the looks of DiCaprio; why bother casting anyone else?

I agree with you about 2001; awe-inspiring, but cold. Probably why I've never bothered to buy it in any home video format. And probably why I won't bother to buy Avatar.

I do love that film, though. Query: Does this mean you really judge a film's merits based on emotional resonance alone? All well and good, I guess, but it's hardly a gold standard I'd hold up especially when confronting the more bizarre avant garde (some of the best films do not elicit much emotion indeed I'd pointlessly argue.)

But yeah, I just can't see something like this being possible in a geek's basement (as much as you may want a mo-cap stage for Christmas!).

Not now. But eventually. Don't ask me what eventually means, but it's likely in the decades. Hell, right now I've seen some prettty interesting CGI stuff done by people on their lonesome. We've got digital cameras that are portable and even primitive cameras on phones; I can honestly see this happening.

And if it ever is, Hollywood will have something so far beyond it that no one will care.

I'd care. Assuming I'm still alive, of course, but I would. The kind of inventiveness one can have here is key. Take Eraserhead. Not the most expensive movie, perhaps, but is it a visually provocative one? Most definitely.

 

[S. Gomez]

I agree with you about 2001; awe-inspiring, but cold. Probably why I've never bothered to buy it in any home video format. And probably why I won't bother to buy Avatar.

I do love that film, though. Query: Does this mean you really judge a film's merits based on emotional resonance alone? All well and good, I guess, but it's hardly a gold standard I'd hold up especially when confronting the more bizarre avant garde (some of the best films do not elicit much emotion indeed I'd pointlessly argue.)

Considering I don't like a lot of the bizarre avant garde...yes, it probably is how I judge a film. And I fail to see the problem with that.

When I'm spending good money for the theatre or a DVD/Blu-ray, I prefer to get something out of it besides the pretty pictures. If I want nothing but that, I'll look at some paintings. The whole point of a movie is that it can tell a compelling story, and if that's not there (especially in the standard narrative format that's been used for movies in North America) then the visuals are pretty much useless. I see no reason why you have to turn off your brain to be dazzled or wowed by a spectacle.

This is why I said at the beginning that we were too different. I say we learn to live with it.

 

[TheArsenal]

Am I the only one who thought the Na'vi felt more like some kind of African tribe, rather than Native American?

I did. And this may have been helped along by the soundtrack which was decidedly reminiscent of traditional African music in many places (the early flying scenes, for example).

I rated this excellent. Complete immersion for me.
A masterpiece in world building that made any story flaws (which I did not find near as considerable as many) forgivable.

 

[T'Baio]

There was spontaneous applause at the end of the showing I went to, as well. It was pretty sweet.

There was applause at the end of the opening night showing I went to, as well.

Going again tomorrow night for our annual late Christmas day movie with all my friends. Looking forward to it!

 

[melancholymecha]

physique of Schwarzenegger and the looks of DiCaprio

that would be hideous!

 

[Kegg]

^
Well... yes. But it's an interesting idea!

Seriously, though, I wanted to suggest muscular and pretty. I'm sure the Hollywood wizards would find a way to make that work, or maybe not, who can say?

Considering I don't like a lot of the bizarre avant garde...yes, it probably is how I judge a film. And I fail to see the problem with that.

When I'm spending good money for the theatre or a DVD/Blu-ray, I prefer to get something out of it besides the pretty pictures.

That's a false dichotomy, though. Films can be appreciated intellectually, or as art; they need not involve soporifics or melodrama. (Nor, for that matter, does a film need to be narrative-driven - and yet oddly, a film lacking narrative can have emotional resonance, so this is another point perhaps.) I can understand if you're only interested in story-driven drama films, but it doesn't follow that non-drama films are shallow. Indeed, many dramas typically don't require a great degree of intellectual commitment - just pay attention and you'll do fine.

So 2001, for example, isn't a film you turn your brain off for.

This is why I said at the beginning that we were too different.

I'm just engaging in debate 'cause that's what I do, I like challenging people on whatever opinions they have I figure I can (and being given the same treatment, of course).

 

[S. Gomez]

Considering I don't like a lot of the bizarre avant garde...yes, it probably is how I judge a film. And I fail to see the problem with that.

When I'm spending good money for the theatre or a DVD/Blu-ray, I prefer to get something out of it besides the pretty pictures.

That's a false dichotomy, though. Films can be appreciated intellectually, or as art; they need not involve soporifics or melodrama. (Nor, for that matter, does a film need to be narrative-driven - and yet oddly, a film lacking narrative can have emotional resonance, so this is another point perhaps.) I can understand if you're only interested in story-driven drama films, but it doesn't follow that non-drama films are shallow. Indeed, many dramas typically don't require a great degree of intellectual commitment - just pay attention and you'll do fine.

And Avatar is probably a great example of that kind of drama, wouldn't you think? But it doesn't necessarily follow that all or even many dramas are soporific or melodramatic or intellectually deprived by their nature. I'll concede though that non-dramatic films can be just perfect for some people, if not for me.

The author Henry James said, "The only obligation to which we may hold a novel...is that it be interesting." In that regard, I did find Avatar succeeded. I wasn't bored and my attention didn't wander. I also don't think it was a waste of time. It was entertaining. But I think the only reason I'm still thinking about it is because we're discussing it.

This is why I said at the beginning that we were too different.

I'm just engaging in debate 'cause that's what I do, I like challenging people on whatever opinions they have I figure I can (and being given the same treatment, of course).

And thank you for it! I don't often get a chance to sharpen my debating skills.

 

[Kegg]

And Avatar is probably a great example of that kind of drama, wouldn't you think?

Oh, yeah. Criticisms of Avatar's failing as drama is all well and good because that's what it's supposed to be. The death of Tsu'Tey may fail to elicit emotions from me, but it damn well intended to; while Frank Poole's death in 2001 has that goal as it were.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that all or even many dramas are soporific or melodramatic or intellectually deprived by their nature.

But there are some, and they have emotional resonance. Hence my citing of The Old Maid earlier upthread, which had me in tears. Not about to say it's a great film (Bette Davis is magnificent in it, but hey, Bette Davis!) but quite an emotional rollercoaster, that.

The author Henry James said, "The only obligation to which we may hold a novel...is that it be interesting."

Quite true. I don't think many would have anything against that, it would just be a matter of one's taste as to what is and is not interesting.

 

[Star Wolf]

Sigourney Weaver- she was great too. Huh, didnt her avie look so cute in her tank top & shorts? bet the guys were salivating.

Sigourney's avatar was really cute.

Oh, and I can't wait for when this comes out on DVD (another BD buy for me) and the Rifftrax for it.

Forget her avatar, my wife and I both asked was that her or a body double when they tried to save her at the tree.

 

[Mr Light]

I saw it on Sunday and the audience applauded at the end too. It's funny how the audiences always laugh the loudest at the most crass obvious 'jokes' in the movie, which usually leave me cringing in a movie I otherwise love.

 

[Trekker4747]

Sigourney Weaver- she was great too. Huh, didnt her avie look so cute in her tank top & shorts? bet the guys were salivating.

Sigourney's avatar was really cute.

Oh, and I can't wait for when this comes out on DVD (another BD buy for me) and the Rifftrax for it.

Forget her avatar, my wife and I both asked was that her or a body double when they tried to save her at the tree.

My vote goes to body double.

 

[Hyperspace05]

or CG double.

 

[Trekker4747]

or CG double.

That's more likely one. A CG double that was highly altered/"cleaned up."

 

[Klaus]

^^ that was my thought upon seeing it.

I saw it last night in full IMAX 3D glory, and gave it an "above average" representing an "excellent" for the f/x and an "average" for the story. It did look great, though I don't think the 3D made it that much better... and the glasses make it impossible for me to ever stop being aware that I'm in a theater watching a movie. My eyes freaked about two hours in but calmed down and it was OK... I'm actually looking forward to seeing it in 2D on the DVD release. But aside from that I thought the look was excellent, something past WETA's work on LotR but without the soullessness of the PT's pretty pictures. There were several moments of true visual lyricism, and apart from the motion of some of the galloping "horses" I rarely had my disbelief suspended [but CG horse gaits rarely look good in my experience].

Story-wise, it was what I expected -- "Dances with Smurfs"... Derivative and corny in places, wielding its metaphors like sledgehammers, but still fun. It was what I thought it would be in that regard so that was OK. I wasn't expecting a Terry Gilliam script.

There were a few times I felt a solid emotional impact as opposed to the by-the-book plot details. The scene with Neytiri holding the human Jake was genuinely touching, and the death of Hometree gave me a very powerful 9-11 vibe. The bad guy was so over-the-top that it detracted from the whole for me -- I didn't really care to cheer when he died but it was nice that she got to kill him, not Jake. Sigourney is always excellent, though actually I was distracted by how much her avatar looked like her.

So I liked it for what it was, insane eye-candy and a not-too-painful story. After all the Cameron hype and fanboy vitriol, it ended up being not especially great or terrible overall -- it was just a movie.

Imagine that.