For those interested in Avatar

[Dominic Cochran]

Segment on tonight's 60 minutes about Avatar. Show starts now.

[Jeff Bruno]

I found it to be a pretty lame interview. The interviewer on CNN was much more on top of his game.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/11/22/int.cameron.carroll.long.cnn

Also they just launched an interactive trailer on avatarmovie.com

[Richardvclark]

Nice find Jeff. The 60 minutes interview was lackluster.

[Brandon Kraemer]

The already mentioned article in the New Yorker on James Cameron is VERY interesting, better than either television interview IMHO.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm still not sure what to expect from Avatar, but I definitely want to see it now. After seeing both the short and extended trailers in 3D a couple times now, it definitely looks to be quite spectacular visually. I don't know if the 3D is going to live up to the hype, but much of that hype started to circulate before Hollywood went 3D nuts and all the animated features went gonzo for 3D. So in that respect I think audiences will be desensitized somewhat.

Hopefully there's more to it, but I think the whole premise of humans raping other worlds for special minerals seems a bit thin and shallow and a little too, er.. human. :)

[James T Mather]

"Hopefully there's more to it, but I think the whole premise of humans raping other worlds for special minerals seems a bit thin and shallow and a little too, er.. human. :)"


....?


not following ya here - how is it shallow exactly?

[Jeff Bruno]

I don't know if the 3D is going to live up to the hype, but much of that hype started to circulate before Hollywood went 3D nuts and all the animated features went gonzo for 3D. So in that respect I think audiences will be desensitized somewhat.

The movie has to deliver without 3D. 3D is just a heightened experience, the problem in the past is studios think their movie is a success just because it is available in 3D.

But yes, the 3D experience is pretty amazing from what i've seen on Avatar day.

[Tom Lowe]

Agree that the 60 Mins interview was kinda lame. That New Yorker article was awesome though.

[Darren Orange]

No mater how we cut it, we really have seen very little of Avatar and not even in 3D keeping in mind this is a 150 minute film. I personally expect good things, not great, just good. I am hoping for great. One think about James is that he puts the time thats needed into developing and making movies, which could certainly help this film become a classic like his others. Too many movies are rushed now a days to produce a buck rather than make a good film, James tends to make a good movie first and the bucks come after.

[Tanner Stauss]

The already mentioned article in the New Yorker on James Cameron is VERY interesting, better than either television interview IMHO.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear

VERY cool article.

[Jeremy Torrie]

A story still has to have an emotional hook -characters we can empathize with. Based on the trailers and all the other promo material (including the 60 Minutes piece) I'm not sure the story does that.

But at $400 Million cost including P&A it better do well...although given the personality of Mr. Cameron I don't think it will change a thing for him. He will have tried and if the film fails (i.e. break even or less), so what? He pushed the technological envelope, and that is commendable.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

A story still has to have an emotional hook -characters we can empathize with. Based on the trailers and all the other promo material (including the 60 Minutes piece) I'm not sure the story does that.

That's what I'm wondering -- and getting at with my late-night, tired-mind comment above. It seems to me that the story makes this group of humans (or nearly all humans in general) out to be interplanetary enviro-terrorists. Anyway, just a couple more weeks... Cameron has yet to disappoint me, so I'm anxious to see what he has done with this.

[Tom Lowe]

Have faith, my friends! In Cameron We Trust.

BTW... I really need to figure out where I am going to be on opening night and book some IMAX 3D tickets!!!

[Eren Ozkural]

Have faith, my friends! In Cameron We Trust.

BTW... I really need to figure out where I am going to be on opening night and book some IMAX 3D tickets!!!

Likewise. I'm sure they're all sold out in London. I'm fernickitty about seating in normal theatres let alone 3D movies. If I can't get middle row/centre I'm not booking opening day.

[Ben DiAnna]

The best thing about knowing the manager at the movie theater is getting private screenings of movies the night before it opens :emote_popcorn:

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm sold after seeing the latest footage released. The shots are all looking like finals now and have greatly improved since the trailer.

[Steve Sherrick]

I'm going in with an openmind, though I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what to make of this movie yet. On the small screen, it looks like a video game. A bit too digital for my liking. But, if the story is good and the look supports the story I will probably be won over. I respect the effort they are putting in. Four years in the making and a ton of money thrown at it, I'm hoping it's one of those movies that you have to see in the theater to appreciate it. My favorite Cameron movie is The Abyss. followed by Aliens, and Terminator.

[Ace]

Cameron's scripts don't have any filler. And 90% of recent films seem to be 10% trailer shots / 90% filler. I see a great trailer these days and I automatically have a sneaking suspicion that the movie will suck.

The reason it will be good will be purely because of story. If the story is thick and sustainable throughout, it will deliver, regardless of style.

[Jeff Bruno]

If you're in America, check out this new behind the scenes segment.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/110975/making-a-scene-avatar

Skip to the 4 minute mark to see what is special about this movie.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The amount of work put into this film is just amazing.

[Tom Lowe]

If you're in America, check out this new behind the scenes segment.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/110975/making-a-scene-avatar

Skip to the 4 minute mark to see what is special about this movie.

:eek6::eek6::eek6:

OMG. I have said it before and I will say it again: this film is going to be HUGE.

[M Most]

:eek6::eek6::eek6:

OMG. I have said it before and I will say it again: this film is going to be HUGE.

At an all-in cost that is likely over $400 million, it has to be to have any degree of success.

[Tom Lowe]

Oh don't worry, it will.

[M Most]

Oh don't worry, it will.

I'm not worried. I have no stake whatsoever in its success or failure.

Personally, I still think it looks like a very elaborate video game. That will appeal to many, and will most definitely not appeal to many others. I've never been a particular fan of the whole performance capture thing, as I'm one of those who looks at it and basically comes away thinking "what's the point?" I felt that way about Polar Express, Beowulf, and would probably feel that way about Christmas Carol if I had any real interest in seeing it. Simulating human actors has its place, but I just find seeing the actual actors on screen a lot more satisfying, both visually and emotionally. There is something to be said for spectacle, but ultimately it's all CGI and every viewer knows it. That, to me, was why I didn't care about the big climactic "battles" in the last 3 Star Wars pictures, why I didn't care about any of the characters in the 2 pictures I just mentioned, why I didn't care about just about anything in the last Transformers picture, and why I likely won't care about anything in Avatar. If one is going to make a cartoon, one should make a cartoon - which is why I actually DID care about almost all the characters in, say, Shrek. Or Wall-E. Or Finding Nemo. Or any of the other projects that didn't try to be something they're not.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[Tom Lowe]

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Good. :laugh:

[Craig Parkes]

I'm not worried. I have no stake whatsoever in its success or failure.

Personally, I still think it looks like a very elaborate video game. That will appeal to many, and will most definitely not appeal to many others. I've never been a particular fan of the whole performance capture thing, as I'm one of those who looks at it and basically comes away thinking "what's the point?" I felt that way about Polar Express, Beowulf, and would probably feel that way about Christmas Carol if I had any real interest in seeing it. Simulating human actors has its place, but I just find seeing the actual actors on screen a lot more satisfying, both visually and emotionally. There is something to be said for spectacle, but ultimately it's all CGI and every viewer knows it....

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Can I ask a question?

How did you feel about Gollum?

Also how did you feel about the Elephant Man - after all, that was just make up.

The psychology of what makes the 'real yet unreal' work for some and not for others is going to growingly be directors and film makers stock and trade as technological boundaries grow.

I think there is an important thing to think about here in terms of Performance capture for these movies - because the human characters are all live action, and only the characters that CAN'T be created practically (10 ft tall blue aliens with tails) are performance capture.

Now, the number of characters that you see at one time in a scene that are performance capture versus real people is possibly what splits the line between what 'feels' cgi and what is real.

A trick of illusion is to mix something that is real, and the audience knows and understands, with something that is unreal - because it confuses the brain and makes the clearly unreal thing more real.

In instances where everything is unreal, the audience simply accepts everything is such. When most things are real, but some things are unreal - the audience are more likely to accept those unreal things as real, it helps hold together the illusion, and its less work for the brain - everything else makes sense, so I'll just assimilate that odd thing as normal/acceptable rather than constantly working to keep track of it.

I think the point of Avatar is to actively push that boundary - if it has pushed it too far then maybe that's the areas where it will be deemed a failure.

But even if it is a failure - And I don't think it will be - it will be a spectacular failure that will be looked back upon as a crazily ambitious achievement - the sort that progresses technology - and even failures of that nature, are in my mind, a good thing.

[Jeff Bruno]

Because Pandora is so vibrantly colored, people seem to deem it a video game. They could have easily darkened the shots and color graded differently if they wanted to really make the audience think it was live action, but they didn't.

The most remarkable thing about Avatar that I saw in Imax 3D is that you get such a dreamlike feeling where it is almost too outlandish, too lush and colorful to be real, but you're really there. The detail in everything is there, the closeups on the characters faces had me believe that they were just wearing makeup.

I've never seen a film before where conceptually everything is so unreal and actually sit there and believe it. It definitely doesn't come off as that by watching a youtube trailer, which is why I think they went and launched Avatar day. You have to see full scenes on the big screen in 3D to get what is special about this film.

[M Most]

Can I ask a question?

How did you feel about Gollum?

Very different situation, for a number of reasons. As you mention, in LOTR, the human characters are all live action and only the characters that cannot be created practically are CG (i.e., Gollum). The Gollum character worked for me both because of the presence of real humans (and not simulations of those humans), its placement in a "real" setting (for the most part, anyway), and because the animation was well acted (in much the same way as Cameron's elaborate performance capture, but more primitive), well tuned, and a lot of care was taken to ensure proper interaction with the live characters. The characters in "Beowulf" did not work for me because they were simulations of humans, not the humans themselves, living in a completely CG world. And, to me, kind of creepy as a result. Avatar's characters are neither. For the most part (as far as I can tell, and except for the lab scenes) these characters exist only in the Pandora environment, which is entirely CG as well. It is those scenes - which likely make up the bulk of the picture - that I'm basing my comments on. And although, as you say, enough exposure to that environment might lead to a suspension of disbelief that might make it more palatable and real, I'm not counting on it because in many ways, it looks more like the world of Shrek to me than it does any live action photograph. But I'm not going to comment any further until the picture is shown and I've seen it. Then I can much better gauge my reaction to it. Any more prior to that is conjecture based on past experience. And I'm not necessarily expecting this to be like any particular past experience.

[Craig Parkes]

That's pretty close to my thinking two, that if there was more 'sets' or real world scenery the initial impact would be less.

One thing I have noticed about the 'look like a video game' comments is that probably a LOT of people were viewing the Quicktime in incorrect colour space/poorly calibrated computer monitors. You take any CG work, and view it with the wrong gamma, and it's OBVIOUSLY wrong, nothing holds up.

Once I viewed the Quicktime trailer on a properly calibrated monitor - it held up WAY better in 2D (I also saw the Avatar Day footage and I thought that looked pretty amazing as well.)

If you make something blue, and want people to believe it's 'alive', it's gotta be exactly the right kind of blue. Viewing Avatar footage in poor conditions makes an insane difference in terms of its impact. (I'm sure you appreciate this more than anyone Mike, and at the same time I'm sure you'd be pickier than most about colour reproduction...)

[chrislancaster]

was not impressed on the mac as much as I was in the imax 3d theater.

I am going to see it.

I am very happy to see a director be so involved with his movie. It's refreshing.

I'm tired of seeing some old brand name dug up thrown on a generic script and pimped out for a buck. I hope that goes away quickly.

Good luck, Mr. Cameron. :emote_popcorn:

[KETCH ROSSi]

I like Cameron's way of thinking and its bringing continue challenges and fresh ideas to the table, yes I do love cartoons as cartoons, and 3D animation as 3D animation, loved the interaction of CGI in LOTR and other films, and I do like what Cameron has done here as well, to me I don't compare this to that or the other, is just simply a new way of making movies, and as technology, and money allows it, we will see more and more, and it is simply great for entertainment.

Does it look more like a video game then a movie, I don't agree, the amount of detail and the achievement in the facial expressions and following of every movement known to the Human eye is very entertaining to see, and very different from some of the forced movements seen in 3D animation.

This is a fantastic new world brought to life, and I salute Cameron for his work, how will the public react to it? I think very positively.

Human actors play their roles, as well as animation and CGI in this entertainment world, which is vast and needs to get even more vast as to continue to entertain and bring fresh material and ways of telling a story to the screen.

[Petr Dvorak]

Making-a-scene video for non US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKFbI6p-L04

[Imran Farouk]

Some reason...those humans in that film...I know their fake...but some glimpses of the footage makes them look pretty damn life like!if not..completely 100% real!!

[J Davis]

My only thought is that Camerons facial expressions technique on the blue skinned aliens may have worked too well.
They look so human that they don't look alien anymore.

[Rudi Herbert]

Here's my take, from someone who's seen a lot more of the film than what's been shown in theaters or the internet...

This film will be revolutionary and worth a viewing by anybody who loves movies, that much about it is certain. Cameron's ideas are always fresh and he's really into exploiting technology to serve the story, and then, he's always been very careful in not overdoing it so the spectacle overpowers the credibility needed to connect with the story and its characters. The universe of the Terminator had its rules, the Terminators could be and were destroyed, and certain things were possible while others weren't. Likewise, in Titanic, there are no overtly impossible camera angles or shots, ala Michael Bay, so you're willing to invest on the story because somehow the film is shot much the same way you would have filmed it if the actual ship was used. But I think this time around, certain things may have gotten away from Jim, however impossible that notion may seem. For those who don't know, Cameron is ALWAYS in control of EVERY aspect of a film and there is absolutely NOTHING that makes it to the screen without his careful scrutiny, revisions and ultimate approval. But this film has an overpowering sense of cutting edge movie making technology embedded into it and it shows in every scene. So he must be ok with it. But you will be overwhelmed more than dazzled with the spectacle created for your viewing pleasure, which is really overpowering at times. Even if the world of Pandora were real and this is how things really looked there, and why not?; the visual bombardment is really overwhelming.

Is that bad? Not necessarily but it might give the CGI haters (and I say this with respect and understanding of their arguments) enough fuel not to connect with the film and this is a very genuine argument. Then, those who appreciate eye candy of the finest form are in for a treat. Now, the story is simple and effective, a man in need of redemption that must change allegiances and transform himself and transcend his humanity, literally, to find such redemption. There are very effective moments in the film where you'll be moved to tears or the "shiny red eye" in their absence, and the finale is uplifting and satisfactorily definitive. So there is a balance between technology and story, which is more than most effects-dependent movies can say of late, but this balance might not be enough for some people. That said, the effects are there to serve the story, not in the moronic, incredibly annoying, show off for no good reason, way of Transformers, but they are there in force. But I have to say that even those who will not connect with the concept will take something from the film and appreciate certain things from it. Certain scenes are very lyrical and both, beautifully simple and simply beautiful, while others do indeed look like elaborate video games.

Lastly, I recommend digital 3D over IMAX, as the former is sharper and the format the film was shot on, while the latter shows some of the imperfections of digital capture (Sony F950 cameras) and the square screen does not do justice to the panoramic vistas.

[Tom Lowe]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and perspective, Rudi.

You do make a good point about digital 3D vs IMAX.

[Hrvoje Simic]

This movie is gonna rock...I have no doubts in Cameron whatsoever.

One more clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxRQzx9Wmi8

[Jeff Bruno]

Thanks for the info Rudi.

Do you think average movie goers will be able to enjoy it? With mcdonalds toys and everything coming up it seems like the target audience is going to be pretty broad. Fox is definitely trying to reach past sci-fi fans.

[Rudi Herbert]

Oh, no problem there, the broad audiences will like it, especially the video game crazed youngsters, which is bad for me, because I hate sharing a screening room with them since they don't stop talking in loud voice, screaming at the screen and telling their bros and hoes that they be at the movies right now on their cell phones...But no, I think that both Cameron and Fox are really shooting for the demographic group between 8 and 80 years of age...

[Tom Lowe]

Rudi, you just need to crack a few skulls and the youngsters will pipe down. ;)

[Danish P.V.]

Can I ask a question?

How did you feel about Gollum?

Also how did you feel about the Elephant Man - after all, that was just make up.



I know you didn`t ask me - but my opinion: Gollom looked and felt fake to me, too, just like those dumb digital stunts/stuntmen (tom cruise in MI or that guy in Titanic that jumped and crashed directly onto the ships` propeller).
But just as others do I`ll wait and watch Avatar for myself before judging.

[Jeff Coatney]

As the technology used in films like Avatar propagates, it becomes less and less reliant on technologies like cameras as we know them. There are already efforts afoot to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" -- Avatar harnesses some performance capture technologies to great effect. In the very near future, we won't be able to trust even news footage as reality. We're heading toward a tipping point where the ability to create synthetic realities will surpass our ability to detect them. Imagine how this could impact public opinion in a political sense.

[M Most]

As the technology used in films like Avatar propagates, it becomes less and less reliant on technologies like cameras as we know them. There are already efforts afoot to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" -- Avatar harnesses some performance capture technologies to great effect. In the very near future, we won't be able to trust even news footage as reality. We're heading toward a tipping point where the ability to create synthetic realities will surpass our ability to detect them. Imagine how this could impact public opinion in a political sense.

And that is....uhhh... good?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Oh, no problem there, the broad audiences will like it, especially the video game crazed youngsters, which is bad for me, because I hate sharing a screening room with them since they don't stop talking in loud voice, screaming at the screen and telling their bros and hoes that they be at the movies right now on their cell phones...But no, I think that both Cameron and Fox are really shooting for the demographic group between 8 and 80 years of age...

There's a very distinct gap. And I'm right on the border. None of my friends or friends of friends consistently text or are slaves to technology. But ONE year younger and they've been bratty nightmares since at least 5th grade. It's a very strange and very sudden change. Our class in gradeschool and highschool didn't get in much trouble and were always the class organizing school events etc. The class behind us were the ones getting the bomb squad called. :D My favorite quote from a friend's older brother was "We were the last generation to use technology without being abused by technology."

I was in a movie theater a few months ago and the guy in front of me whips out his phone and starts texting during the movie. Like multiple multiple times. So I kick the back of his chair and ask "Could you please stop texting until the end of the movie or do it outside the theater?" He pauses for a second and leans into his friend "Could you hear what he said?" Completely clueless as to what he might be doing wrong that would elicit a chair kick and scolding. :badputer:

[Jeff Bruno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD8EEJepfiY

I don't think I can make it to December 18th. It's too far away.

[Ace]

"There's a special place in hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk during movies."

[Tom Lowe]

I know that Drew saw this last night.

Drew, give us a full report!!!

[Andrew Walker]

I know that Drew saw this last night.

Drew, give us a full report!!!

Well I can't really give a full report because one of the producers or post supers had me do a handshake NDA. So if I want to keep coming back to Fox I'll have to be as vague as possible.

So here it goes. As with almost all JC movies he has the science in it as believable possible, which just brings you into the movie even more. The level of design in the exosuites was really cool along with the other vehicles. But what really impressed me was the design and life of the Na'vi characters. They seemed very real and it was really what they were able to capture in the face and eyes. By far the best represented CGI/MC characters I have ever seen.

The action was also very much JC. So if you liked what he has done in the past you will like this movie. Plus the way it is done gives you a real sense of urgency and that the characters are in real peril. The 3D also enhances this even more.

This movie is by far one of the best 3D films I have seen because they don't try and use it as a gimmick by shoving images into your face and all that bullshit. Instead you feel like you are watching a 3D film. So I would strongly suggest that if you are going to see this movie, see it in 3D as it is amazing.

As for the story I'm not going to say anything because I think that's what the little handshake NDA was about.

[Jeff Bruno]

Well I can't really give a full report because one of the producers or post supers had me do a handshake NDA.

That's not a real NDA, spill the beans!

Haha, just kidding. Thanks for the mini report. Fox seems to be embargoing all reviews until its opening, which could work poorly in their favor. No review quotes on the tv spots for the next 3 weeks.

[Andrew McCarrick]

hmm... all I can say is I'm not really impressed by that video on hulu, looks a video game to me.

[Iannis Holwech]

The Independent; Avatar - Gateway to a new world (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/avatar--gateway-to-a-new-world-1833691.html)


When footage of Avatar was shown at cinemas around the world earlier this summer, the response was far from ecstatic. Some viewers talked about enduring an experience akin to seasickness. Avatar is an action movie – and it remains a moot point whether 3D technology is ready as a format for action yet. Too much Sturm und Drang, especially if a film is cut quickly and has strobing and a pounding soundtrack, is liable to make spectators feel very queasy.

When you shoot at 24 frames a second and show fast lateral movement, the image will appear to be jumpy. With 3D, shooting with two cameras, this problem is compounded.
Film-makers need to slow down the pace, shoot at a higher frame rate, or risk their audiences feeling nauseous.

"If he [Cameron] succeeds in doing it [making a 3D action film] without giving people headaches, then it will be a revolution," suggests Ben Stassen, director of 3D animated picture Fly Me to the Moon.

"If anybody can do it, he can, but to me the technology is not ready for that sort of stuff."

[Jeff Bruno]

Cameron said he already wanted to shoot at 48fps, but the studio was iffy.

You do get ghosting during fast paced scenes, but no headaches. Cameron was smart enough to "dial down" the 3D during fast shots so your brain didn't have to process the depth as much.

[Tom Lowe]

First reviews of AVATAR are rolling in. Yes! "Oscar-bound" " "movie magic is back" "How will Cameron ever top this?"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/avatar-film-review-1004052868.story

http://reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif http://reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif http://reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[M Most]

Cameron said he already wanted to shoot at 48fps, but the studio was iffy.


The studio was "iffy" because among other things, there's no apparatus in place to project or distribute a movie - especially a 3D movie - shot at 48fps.

[Tom Lowe]

Reviewer from Aint it Cool: "It was pretty great...if by pretty great I mean OMFGHOLYFUCKINGSHITOMGOMGOMG. Because that's what it was."

Also...


(Reuters) – Director James Cameron's long-awaited "Avatar" wowed critics at its London premiere on Thursday, with some early reviewers calling it "jaw-dropping," "mind-blowing" and a game-changer in Hollywood for its digital effects.


The Sun called it "the most dazzling film of the decade. ... The final battle scene is 20 minutes long and absolutely mind-blowing."


"An epic film born entirely of Cameron's imagination, Avatar uses tailor-made technology to create the most astonishing visual effects yet seen on screen and blends them seamlessly into a mythical sci-fi story" -- Screen International

[Iannis Holwech]

A tips for people living in or close to London; the Empire Leicester Square theater is the place to see Avatar.



Dolby 3D and Barco Projection Take Center Stage at Avatar World Premiere
Empire Leicester Square Takes the Lead for Premiere (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dolby-3D-and-Barco-Projection-bw-380538065.html?x=0&.v=1)

“Empire Leicester Square boasts one of the largest screens in the UK, which is why it regularly plays host to world premieres,”
“Avatar promises to deliver state-of-the-art 3D special effects to audiences around the world.
To ensure every seat in Empire Leicester Square enjoys the fully immersing 3D experience, Dolby Production Services worked with Barco, Empire, and Twentieth Century Fox® to ensure the best combination of brightness, image sharpness, and color accuracy to display this spectacular new movie as director James Cameron intended.”

To meet Cameron’s exacting standards for Avatar’s premiere, Dolby and Barco worked to provide a customized solution, comprising two Dolby 3D large-screen systems, featuring four Barco DP-3000 ultra bright digital cinema projectors.
Using dual stacked Barco projectors for the left eye and an additional dual stack for the right eye, each set features Dolby's 3D color filter technology.
.
.



Some interesting information from the Avatar designers;


5 Designers Reveal Secrets Of James Cameron's Avatar (http://gizmodo.com/5420143/5-designers-reveal-secrets-of-james-camerons-avatar)

We interviewed creature designers Wayne Barlowe and Neville Page, plus concept artists James Clyne, Ryan Church and Daphne Yap, about creating a whole new universe from scratch. Plus we've got some stunning concept art, from the new book The Art Of Avatar.

So here are a few things you didn't know about the design of James Cameron's Avatar:

[Sanjin Jukic]

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avtr-127b-550x1042.jpg
James Cameron on Avatar was a regular Rolex and Panasonic AG-HVX200 user.

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avtr-158-550x985.jpg
James Cameron on Avatar with a virtual camera...

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/avtr-100-550x420.jpg
James Cameron on Avatar plays with audio on Behringer mixing console...

See more of 21 High Resolution Photos From James Cameron’s Avatar>>> (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/02/21-high-resolution-photos-from-james-camerons-avatar/#ixzz0ZGOJEqWn)

[Shawn Nelson]

So I read on another forum someone pointing out the tremendous similarities between Avatar and Ferngully... bummer, because I hate Ferngully and I wanted to like Avatar "Ferngully with Machine Guns"

[Curran Giddens]

The studio was "iffy" because among other things, there's no apparatus in place to project or distribute a movie - especially a 3D movie - shot at 48fps.

what we need is a digital version of showscan.

[M Most]

what we need is a digital version of showscan.

Well, good luck with that.

For all of the fond memories people seem to have of Showscan, everyone seems to conveniently forget that it was a complete financial failure.

[Tom Lowe]

Very awesome and very nerdy interview with Cameron where he explains his camera and motion-capture systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc

[Frank Weeks]

Very awesome and very nerdy interview with Cameron where he explains his camera and motion-capture systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc

I really enjoyed this interview. He is really excited about what he and his team have accomplished.

Love his comment about lighting
"It's not photo reality, it's a CG simulation of the false reality of hollywood movie making"

I had to think about that one for few seconds:)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

So I read on another forum someone pointing out the tremendous similarities between Avatar and Ferngully... bummer, because I hate Ferngully and I wanted to like Avatar "Ferngully with Machine Guns"

Haha I remembered loving Fern Gully as a kid and watched it a month or two ago. It's terrible. I was so excited to watch it again-- such a disappointment. I'm afraid to watch Land Before Time now.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Very awesome and very nerdy interview with Cameron where he explains his camera and motion-capture systems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aao0YSITuxc

Great interview. And he's not BSing it either--he actually understands the systems he's talking about which is refreshing and I'm sure key to him being able to get the results he wanted.

[Florin Andrei]

Ebert on Avatar: "An extraordinary film."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998

[Tom Lowe]

I'm not worried. I have no stake whatsoever in its success or failure.

Personally, I still think it looks like a very elaborate video game. That will appeal to many, and will most definitely not appeal to many others. I've never been a particular fan of the whole performance capture thing, as I'm one of those who looks at it and basically comes away thinking "what's the point?" I felt that way about Polar Express, Beowulf, and would probably feel that way about Christmas Carol if I had any real interest in seeing it. Simulating human actors has its place, but I just find seeing the actual actors on screen a lot more satisfying, both visually and emotionally. There is something to be said for spectacle, but ultimately it's all CGI and every viewer knows it. That, to me, was why I didn't care about the big climactic "battles" in the last 3 Star Wars pictures, why I didn't care about any of the characters in the 2 pictures I just mentioned, why I didn't care about just about anything in the last Transformers picture, and why I likely won't care about anything in Avatar. If one is going to make a cartoon, one should make a cartoon - which is why I actually DID care about almost all the characters in, say, Shrek. Or Wall-E. Or Finding Nemo. Or any of the other projects that didn't try to be something they're not.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Well what do you think now, Mr Most?

Avatar has been a "HUGE" success by any stretch of the imagination.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

And we haven't even gotten to the Oscars yet. :thumbsup:

[M Most]

Well what do you think now, Mr Most?

Avatar has been a "HUGE" success by any stretch of the imagination.


I said I was willing to be proven wrong. I saw the picture and liked it. So I was proven wrong.

I would also say that the early trailers were misleading in that they really did not incorporate the look of the final picture, which is why they got the reaction they got, and not just from me. Fortunately, they were only trailers, and the picture was much more realistically integrated. More importantly - much more importantly - it had a good story that was well told.

[Kevin Wild]

I'm not sure I'd say "good story" as much as "tried & true" story...as posted by many others. The Oscars have given me faith the past couple years that they can get it right and choose some underdogs (Slumdog, Juno, Once). But I seriously hope the Avatar script isn't up for an Oscar. That would be disappointing.

[Gustavo Penna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uklnIxcQihs&feature=player_embedded

Cameron didn't make a movie. he made a dream come true.

it is not about 2K, 3 K, 4K or 20 K. 95% of the action shots or with all the real actors was shot with sony's Ex3's.

[Steve Sherrick]

In all fairness to Mike, I too went in very skeptical, especially based on the trailers. As I mentioned early on, I thought it looked like a video game when I watched the trailer online. I came out of the movie pleasantly surprised. Here's what won me over.

Na'vi Characters: In 3D, they really came to life for me and it's the thing I liked most about the film. Never before have I invested myself so emotionally in CG characters. The 3D seemed to enhance their believability and proved to me that when 3D is used properly it can enhance a film's storytelling. And for what it's worth, I liked the Na'vi world far more than the "real world", i.e. live action. The video look, the less than stellar acting at times, just didn't do as much for me. But because of the strength of the Na'vi world it offset those flaws.

Story:Yes, the story is simple. Yes, it has been done before. And yes, there are weaknesses. However, if you're like me I tend to let my mind go beyond the confines of the story and fill in my own details, and I think deeply about things addressed in the subtext of the film. This happened to me while watching Avatar.

The movie has made a lot of money. The reason for that probably goes beyond 3D, but I do actually believe that in this case, 3D does enhance the story.

[Kevin Wild]

Steve, I would actually say that 3D enhanced "the experience," NOT the story. The stories are really unaffected by 99% of what is discussed here on the boards. :-) But I do get what you're saying. The "immersion" INTO the story was helped by 3D and great animation, great textures, etc.

[Steve Sherrick]

Steve, I would actually say that 3D enhanced "the experience," NOT the story. The stories are really unaffected by 99% of what is discussed here on the boards. :-) But I do get what you're saying. The "immersion" INTO the story was helped by 3D and great animation, great textures, etc.

I would agree. Although in this case, I would say the 3D also made me enjoy the characters more which in turn made me enjoy the story more. :-)

The thing about story, especially when it comes to these types of movies is that it's easy to point to all kinds of examples throughout history of similar stories. I suppose what people are having trouble with when it comes to Avatar is that it's very easy to point out which stories this resembles. But when you break down most films, they all tend to fall into the same few basic storylines. The one's most often referred to are:

- man vs nature
- man vs man
- man vs. the environment
- man vs. machines/technology
- man vs the supernatural
- man vs. self
- man vs God/religion

It's the details that separate each film, and for me, there were enough unique details in Avatar that kept me engaged. Having said that, there are flaws in Avatar, including ones that involve the story that keep it from going straight to the top of my list of all-time films. So, I do understand the criticism it has received.

[Noah Kadner]

Avatar is now the highest grossing film of all time outside of the U.S.- surpassing Titanic. And is set to become the highest grossing film of all time worldwide in the next few days. I'd say if your big budget Hollywood movie wasn't already going to be shot in 3D now, there's not a studio in town who won't insist on it from now on... Wow.

Noah

[M Most]

it is not about 2K, 3 K, 4K or 20 K. 95% of the action shots or with all the real actors was shot with sony's Ex3's.

I don't know where you got that idea. The cameras on the Pace 3D rigs that were used on "Avatar" are Sony 950 variants (with the imaging section separated from the processing unit), not EX3's. While the 950 is a 3 chip HD camera (i.e., 1920x1080), it is hardly the prosumer level unit that the EX series is.

[Tom Lowe]

EX3s were not even used, at all, as far as I know.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Well IMO the technical aspect of the film, even so not flawless, as I did spot few little Stereography mistakes, was just simply an incredible achievement, as far as the Story, even so at times dialogue and some of the Acting itself, had its moments, was an inspiring one, touching great points in our life, and hope that people see that, unfortunately even if they do, as James intended them, we are a race which thinks mostly of the NOW, and little of the future, we are a race of surviver's, yet we don't take what its upon us too seriously and continue to destroy our ONLY life line, our planet.

Hope we still have time and will make changes fast to suffice.

BUt as far as AVATAR it self as a Movie, I said it form the very beginning, long before the Movie and or Trailer were ever shown, based on my knowledge of what was currently been done by James and his team, Avatar was going to be the biggest movie in cinema history, and now, well is just about is.

[Gustavo Penna]

The x 3's where used on the stereo rigs with motorized variable convergence that flew on the steadicam. and on top of that, they used sony's 950, the HDC 1500 and the F 23 with Digiprimes and canon zooms for most of the tight shots. This Epic movie will just make sony bigger. thats bad for Us Red owners. have you seen how sony campaigns always on box office profits ?

and we have to accept that AVATAR looks way better than the book of Eli. not to mention that more than a movie cameron made a dream come true.

[Steve Sherrick]

Well, color me blind, but I don't think the live action footage in Avatar looks that great. Especially not when juxtaposed with the high resolution CG world they created. I don't think the Sony cameras were the highlight of the film. Maybe it was a combination of the resolution, how it was composited, color graded, etc. I can safely say I have seen better looking RED footage. But nonetheless, it didn't really matter. I liked the movie despite the small issue I had with the live action material. I haven't had the chance to see Book of Eli yet, so I won't compare without seeing. It did seem to me from the trailers there was some rough looking compositing at times, but could have been fixed in the final film. I'll try to see it before it leaves theaters.

[Kevin Wild]

Ha, this is a pretty funny and UBER-sarcastic site "defending" Cameron from taking the plot from "Dances with Wolves." Good stuff:

http://media.gunaxin.com/avatar-is-not-dancing-with-wolves/43300

[Steve Sherrick]

Ha, this is a pretty funny and UBER-sarcastic site "defending" Cameron from taking the plot from "Dances with Wolves." Good stuff:

http://media.gunaxin.com/avatar-is-not-dancing-with-wolves/43300

Pretty good. :-)