Damn you avatar!!

[Thanee]

Meaning that James Cameron can now focus on actually writing an original script when he makes Avatar 2.

Cameron himself said, that he isn't really good at writing. I guess he should better hire someone who is, then.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Klaus]

After watching that 70 minute review of Phantom Menace, I pin the source of my complaints to the lack of oversight and second-guessing during the movie's production. There are just so many things wrong with the prequels from a storytelling standpoint that I have to imagine someone noticed them, but just was too afraid to say, "Hey, Mr. Lucas, this story doesn't make any sense, the mystery is too convoluted, and all of the characters are stiff and emotionless. I thought we were supposed to be making a fun movie. This doesn't seem fun."

That was always my guess. No one had the balls to tell George "hey, Mr. Lucas, are you... sure about this?"

 

[Joker]

Thankfully, I think we reached the pinnacle of CG technology (until holo-movies and the holodeck is built) so I think it will be difficult for CG to appear 'dated'. Meaning that James Cameron can now focus on actually writing an original script when he makes Avatar 2.

I don't think we've reached the pinnacle by a long shot. Everything still looks too clean and controlled and the compositing can be a lot more seamless than it is now.

We'll have reached a soft pinnacle when you can have a life-action sequence with people in it and the same sequence completely in CGI next to it and that you can't tell the difference between the two.

 

[Pbartender]

We'll have reached a soft pinnacle when you can have a life-action sequence with people in it and the same sequence completely in CGI next to it and that you can't tell the difference between the two.

Interestingly enough, that was one of the "practice run" benchmarks that John Lassiter set for his CGI guys when they made Finding Nemo. While they obviously didn't hold to it for the characters in the movie, he held them to it for the backgrounds and textures.

The special features on the DVD has side-by-side comparisons of real footage of, say, waves in the ocean next their computer generated version.

Avatar, I think met the same benchmark. While the creatures could still be tagged as CGI if you looked carefully, most of the background work was practically photo realistic... At least to my admittedly poor eye sight they were.

 

[Joker]

Interestingly enough, that was one of the "practice run" benchmarks that John Lassiter set for his CGI guys when they made Finding Nemo. While they obviously didn't hold to it for the characters in the movie, he held them to it for the backgrounds and textures.

The special features on the DVD has side-by-side comparisons of real footage of, say, waves in the ocean next their computer generated version.

Avatar, I think met the same benchmark. While the creatures could still be tagged as CGI if you looked carefully, most of the background work was practically photo realistic... At least to my admittedly poor eye sight they were.

The thing is that I can still see that each object (objects in the sense of trees, bugs, people, machines) is seperated from its surroundings. Now, I may very well feel this way because I have the knowledge that it's fake but it may also be that on a sub-concious level I can tell the objects on the screen don't interact well enough with the other objects, in terms of lights and reflection.