Personally i enjoy deep good movies, that to me is the whole point of movies, and therefore i didn't really like this.
wasn't nearly as bad as i expected it to be though, i'd give it a 5.
I gave it a 2 for having inaccuracies. :colbert:
[QUOTE=Murky42;19398086]Personally i enjoy deep good movies, that to me is the whole point of movies, and therefore i didn't really like this.
wasn't nearly as bad as i expected it to be though, i'd give it a 5.[/QUOTE]
what? no
[QUOTE=Lambeth;19396321]If you don't like this but you liked Star Trek, you're lying to yourself.
If you don't like this but you liked District 9, you're pretentious.
If you don't like this but you liked Star Wars, you're just an idiot.
[editline]12:33AM[/editline]
also people saying the na'vi are furry cat people, shut up[/QUOTE]
How the fuck am I pretentious?
Avatar is a fucking awesome movie, especially in 3D
Awesome movie, but my favorite is still Coraline.
Effects were great, 3d was great, everything was great!!!
i would rate it a 9,but because of the 3d effect,i give it a 10
I absolutely loved this movie, it was well worth the extra $3 for the 3D version, definitely the best movie that I have seen in 2009 and 2010 (so far). You really feel like you are on Pandora living along-side the Na'vi, the movie is just AMAZING, I wish I could rate it higher than a 10. I plan to see it again very soon, maybe a few more times
[QUOTE=Warren Holzem;19355719]So did UP.
Why is it being considered "new technology" when other films have done it already?
[/quote]
UP was a animation, this was live action filmed in IMAX and 3D. In up all they needed to do was tweak some of the stuff and re-render it to get the 3D, for live action films they need to use two cameras side by side, in this case two IMAX cameras side by side.
This dual IMAX camera was Cameron's 'invention' and it would have been far more complex than it seems.
The fact that the film was 'new technology' was because they were actually using two cameras to record, in IMAX and then doing a whole load of CGI blended in with the two cameras. The film was probably more CGI than live action, which is another reason why it is quite a large step forwards. Plus this is the first feature length film shot entirely with IMAX 3D cameras.
It was also really the first feature length film to use the extremely complex methods of motion capture. Each Na'vi was played by a real actor (which isn't that new), but the main ones had to be 'fitted' to the main actors (i.e. Sam Worthington and Zoe Sandala) which took months. AFIK the motion capture tech can capture pretty much everything, like facial movements and such.
Essentially most of the new technology is under the hood, in the actual production of the film, but it means that CGI characters can be truly human instead of simply animations pupeteered by animators.
[editline]03:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Murky42;19398086]Personally i enjoy deep good movies, that to me is the whole point of movies, and therefore i didn't really like this.
wasn't nearly as bad as i expected it to be though, i'd give it a 5.[/QUOTE]
Movies are about telling stories, not pretending to be 'deep' with cryptic messages and pointless plots. Some stories are have interesting philosophical questions, some like avatar need an active imagination to enjoy.
I don't see how Avatar can't be considered that 'deep' though, there's plenty of underlying messages and ideas, and certainly a load of interesting scientific stuff. Only if you're willing to actually think about it though, which is kind of the point of being deep.
There are plenty of deeper films, but I wouldn't call Avatar shallow.
I watched it, and I was left wondering what they managed to spend $400 Million on.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;19402546]I watched it, and I was left wondering what they managed to spend $400 Million on.[/QUOTE]
They spent 5 years making Avatar, and you need a bit more than a few spare computers to render CGI. I mean even the cameras probably cost $10 million each.
[editline]1[/editline]
Jesus, they used a server farm of 40,000 processors processing [i]8 gigabytes a second[/i] of data, and each frame often took several hours to render. Which they would have had to do twice for the 3D, at IMAX resolutions.
Saw it in 2D, was pretty cool tho. Final battle wasn't so emosewa imo tho, but nice. Guess it would have been super in 3D but whatever. Kinda not my style and wouldn't call it best movie I have seen. Anyway, they are making Avatar2 eh?
Thought the film was awsome but i need to go and see it in 3d
[QUOTE=Hivemind;19403010]They spent 5 years making Avatar, and you need a bit more than a few spare computers to render CGI. I mean even the cameras probably cost $10 million each.
[editline]1[/editline]
Jesus, they used a server farm of 40,000 processors processing [i]8 gigabytes a second[/i] of data, and each frame often took several hours to render. Which they would have had to do twice for the 3D, at IMAX resolutions.[/QUOTE]
Pfffff. They could just used After Effects. Or paint - you know, you can draw anything with pixels... One by one. Sure it would take 8000 years but it's cheap!
[QUOTE=frums;19360715]No, she can speak English fluently from the start.[/QUOTE]
No.
Watch the film again.
When she first begins speaking she sounds like fucking Jar Jar Binks.
What plots aren't cliched these days?
:|
Fifth highest grossing film worldwide after just 17 days. Nice.
[QUOTE=Beafman;19383606]written by the avatar movie team and James Cameron himself.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;19402546]I watched it, and I was left wondering what they managed to spend $400 Million on.[/QUOTE]
Research and development. They had to invent the tech they used, for the most part. That costs.
The upside is that the next Avatar(or Avatar type movie) will be far cheaper to make. And each movie made afterwords using this tech will be cheaper still.
Plus that 400 mill includes the massive publicity machine created for this movie. Not all 3d movies will get this level of hype, it wouldn't be worth the risk. Cameron gets it because he has a track record, including the number one movie of all time.
Went to watch it again with my friends because they hadn't seen it and realised how horrible papyrus subtitles look
[QUOTE=sam2d2;19407706]Went to watch it again with my friends because they hadn't seen it and realised how horrible papyrus subtitles look[/QUOTE]
No subtitles look good, at least they fit the style of them in with the theme of the movie, instead of having plain arial white text
[QUOTE=iownuall;19407871]No subtitles look good, at least they fit the style of them in with the theme of the movie, instead of having plain arial white text[/QUOTE]
I had ugly yellow text :(.
[QUOTE=Hivemind;19403010]They spent 5 years making Avatar, and you need a bit more than a few spare computers to render CGI. I mean even the cameras probably cost $10 million each.
[editline]1[/editline]
Jesus, they used a server farm of 40,000 processors processing [i]8 gigabytes a second[/i] of data, and each frame often took several hours to render. Which they would have had to do twice for the 3D, at IMAX resolutions.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ. No wonder it took so fucking long -- they spent most of their time rendering it. :v:
I want to live on Pandora. :frown:
P.S. The CGI part was 240,000 frames, each frame = 12MB. So the CGI part was almost 3TB(2812.5GB)...
[QUOTE=FreDre;19408598]holy fuck
already $1 billion worldwide in less time than Titanic and The Dark Knight.
[url]http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/clock.png[/img]
[QUOTE=LEETNOOB;19408613][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/clock.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Why late?
It just updated like 40 minutes ago
[QUOTE=FreDre;19408636]Why late?
It just updated like 40 minutes ago[/QUOTE]
1 Page ago:
[QUOTE=Carne;19402476]Avatar passes $1B worldwide:
[url]http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/[/url][/QUOTE]
So, [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/rating/clock.png[/img].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
