So close to 5 years after Avatar was released....

[The Futurist]

I agree. The Hobbit aims to be state of the art and the team had the resources to make it so, but it just isn't.

 

And it is strange because Avatar, Hobbit and the Apes movies were all done at Weta Digital.

[Moviedweeb]

And it is strange because Avatar, Hobbit and the Apes movies were all done at Weta Digital.

 

I guess it boils down to creative choices which is a shame.

[Thegun]

The frame rate also caused a major issue with the CGI in the Hobbit films. They're state of the art with one kind of filmmaking. You can't just throw a new one at them and expect the same results.  Also it's very different with the amount of real sets and actors vs. completely generated.

 

The scenes with the actors surrounded by CGI in Avatar are easily the weakest effects of the film. (Still unbelievable though)

Edited November 22, 2014 by Thegun

[dashrendar44]

I guess it boils down to creative choices which is a shame.

 

And PJ changes his mind a lot in the process at last minute ditching hours of work in the bin to re-start from scratch. Add the stretching shooting due to expanding the book in 3 long meandering slogs, shooting for 3D, shooting in HFR and the additional constraints that bring on VFX (2 times more frames to render, neater frame means more work has to be pushed on the models to look realistic at 4K resolution). Yeah, I can see why we experience a drop in terms of quality or uneven effects from one shot to another compared to the 2D trilogy shot in 24 FPS that was LOTR.

Edited November 23, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Hatebox]

Gravity is still the only film I'm glad I saw in 3D. The motion capture in Avatar was impressive though.

 

I think it's a shame Cameron is sticking with this franchise rather than pursuing something new (mostly because I don't care about any of the characters), but the talk of another film underwater has me intrigued.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Untitled Hatebox Project

[Hatebox]

In terms of the CG, like every movie there's occasionally a shot or two where a careful eye can catch certain issues... but AVATAR is more noticeably "CG" because it's showing us creatures and characters that are emphatically NOT real here on Earth: no matter how photoreal the image, your eye is going to tell you that the 10 foot tall Thundersmurf is a visual effect.

 

I've brought this up before, but it's part of the reason I find Avatar difficult to rewatch - the CGI is so effective at creating these creatures and fauna which I know don't exist that a sort of uncanny valley effect occurs. I must be the only one as I've never seen anyone else mention it.

[theendsnotnearitshere]

I remember walking out of the theater very disappointed that December. It was so hyped for the groundbreaking CGI and 3D (ah, those times when people would rush to see anything in 3D) that I believe most people felt obliged to say they liked it even if character/plot/script wise this movie was a turd.

 

I also hate it when people say how this movie was like a video game with the state of the art graphics, because nowadays there's video games with much more developed characters/storylines. So yeah, basically great effects (though there's nothing memorable or of artistic vaule to it) with the depth of a Starbucks commercial. Is there anyone here that genuinely disliked it on the 1st watch?

[Jessie]

I remember walking out of the theater very disappointed that December. It was so hyped for the groundbreaking CGI and 3D (ah, those times when people would rush to see anything in 3D) that I believe most people felt obliged to say they liked it even if character/plot/script wise this movie was a turd.

I also hate it when people say how this movie was like a video game with the state of the art graphics, because nowadays there's video games with much more developed characters/storylines. So yeah, basically great effects (though there's nothing memorable or of artistic vaule to it) with the depth of a Starbucks commercial. Is there anyone here that genuinely disliked it on the 1st watch?

I disliked it upon first viewing but then it grew on me. Story wise, Avatar clearly appealed to the masses and it wasn't just the 3D that had people watching it or it wouldn't have become the biggest selling blueray of all time. Also people weren't rushing out to see any 3d film at this time, it was after its release that 3d became a big thing, Avatar single handily made 3d popular and at the time of its release there was a limited number of screens that could actually support the format so it's gross could have been a lot higher had theatres been more prepared.

And why are you comparing Avatar to a video game? And I love how you just decide it's unmemorable when the rest of the planet would clearly disagree with you . But yeah, in your opinion people just felt obliged to say they liked this film and they bullshitted to all of their friends who then bullshitted to theirs which made this film by far the highest grossing movie of all time simply because people felt 'obliged' to like it. Damn I know you're new to these forums but that doesn't excuse you for talking so much shit.

Haters gonna hate.

Edited November 25, 2014 by jessie

[Phil in the Blank]

Jessie, never failing to know exactly what the public think about any particular movie!

[Jessie]

Jessie, never failing to know exactly what the public think about any particular movie!

You have a real talent for popping up whenever I mention the GA, it's a gift

[Phil in the Blank]

You have a real talent for popping up whenever I mention the GA, it's a gift

 

What can I say, 

 

 

But seriously. In my limited interactions with people out there in the real world, Avatar has certainly not been a particularly well remembered movie from what I can tell.

[Jessie]

What can I say, 

 

 

But seriously. In my limited interactions with people out there in the real world, Avatar has certainly not been a particularly well remembered movie from what I can tell.