Avatar Superthread

BlitzKrieg · 04-01-2010 10:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The Matrix wasn't the first film to use bullet time it was in fact Blade. At this stage bullet time is a cliche which is way too overused, but like all good cliches when done well it really can impress.

actually

Bullet Time refers to a digitally enhanced simulation of variable speed (i.e. slow motion, time-lapse…) photography used in films, broadcast advertisements and video games. It is characterized both by its extreme transformation of time (slow enough to show normally imperceptible and un-filmable events, such as flying bullets) and space (by way of the ability of the camera angle—the audience's point-of-view—to move around the scene at a normal speed while events are slowed). The first movie to use the Bullet Time technique was Blade in 1998, where bullets were computer-generated and digitally implemented. However, the actual term Bullet Time is a registered trademark of Warner Bros., the distributor of The Matrix.[1]

now thats just the ownership.

the issue of definition of bullet time is debatable because in blade it is a slow motion sequence with digitally implemented bullets.

How I define Bullet time personnally is like so:

The Bullet Time effect was originally achieved photographically by a set of still cameras surrounding the subject. These arrays are usually triggered at once or sequentially. Singular frames taken from each of the still cameras are then arranged and displayed consecutively to produce an orbiting viewpoint of an action frozen in time or as hyper-slow-motion. This technique suggests the limitless perspectives and variable frame rates possible with a virtual camera. However, if the still array process is done with real cameras, it is often limited to assigned paths.

which is the method used in most of the more impressive sequences of the Matrix.

Most films do not use this technique style because it is much more time consuming and costly (not too mentione restrictive) then the methods much preferred today.

personnally I perfer this method because it keeps the depth perception in most of the sequences intact, while other sequences suffer from a sort of animation blur giving depth perception difficulty at times, it takes a good cgi team to keep it intact.

best comparison is the bullet time with neo on the roof in the original matrix

and the falling trinity in matrix reloaded.

ignore the sound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxbYTMNMxo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZv6VW3WKIQ

from about 2 minutes in when it does bullet time to show trinity jumping out the window and her falling.

Two different techniques.

i doubth very much it was a sleeper, it was promoted hughly and got a lot of acclaim for it next generation style of special effects, its actually very similar to avatar, it introduced a new leap in effects (or style, which ever you prefer), but avatars leap in effects technology make to matrix effects seem like they were done by a secondary school student,

ughh yeah its a sleeper hit.

Warner bros lacked so much confidence in the film that they pushed it up to a march release to avoid going head to head with the phantom menace.

don ramo · 04-01-2010 11:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The matrix was very much a sleeper hit, it only made 27 million in it's opening weekend on nearly 3,000 screens. It then spent a number of months doing solid business in theaters. The was some marketing for the film but nothign on the level of that for films such as Avatar or any of the other big blockbusters in recent years.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

ughh yeah its a sleeper hit.

Warner bros lacked so much confidence in the film that they pushed it up to a march release to avoid going head to head with the phantom menace.

i dont get it, the matrix cost $63 million to make, and made $27 in its opening american weekend, wheras avatar cost over $300 million, to make yet only made $75 million on opening american weekend, plus had 500 more screens than the matrix, and also had the extra costs of 3D,

the matrix made half its money back in its domestic opening weekend, i wouldnt call that sleeping, so what exactly does a film have to do to not be a sleeper, make its entire budget back in its opening american weekend

04-01-2010 11:51PM

don ramo wrote: »

i dont get it, the matrix cost $63 million to make, and made $27 in its opening american weekend, wheras avatar cost over $300 million, to make yet only made $75 million on opening american weekend, plus had 500 more screens than the matrix, and also had the extra costs of 3D,

the matrix made half its money back in its domestic opening weekend, i wouldnt call that sleeping, so what exactly does a film have to do to not be a sleeper, make its entire budget back in its opening american weekend

A sleeper hit is one which has long lasting box office appeal, a film which spends months in theaters bringing in a stead stream of money which is exactly what both The Matrix and Avatar did. Both have profited from positive word of mouth and people returning to see the film a number of times.

Take a film such as Twilight which had a massive opening weekend followed by a nearly 51% drop off in it's second week. This is exactly the opposite of a sleeper as it has limited box office appeal once the initial interest wares off.

vinylbomb · 05-01-2010 12:01AM

Draupnir wrote: »

This quite frankly is the worst argument I have ever read about anything, ever.

There is actually a fair bit of storyline behind the concept of uniting the clans, the montage is perfect for what it does as it avoids a Return of the King style borefest as they travel from tribe to tribe.

Furthermore, the montage opens up the concept of the planet as some huge world with multiple eco systems (hinted at in the opening space scenes) and shows that it isn't an entirely forest world which makes the universe seem even more epic.

I said a had a problem with the script (not the montage) - I'm being strawmanned here, after being accused (wrongly) of doing likewise to someone else earlier in this thread.

The script simplistically suggests that all the "clans" are awed and impressed into following along with this guy, despite NO contact discussed, in fact despite NO MENTION of other clans/tribes/whatever elsewhere in the movie- and all the script does is shows a guy shouting about how he rides a dragon, and everyone comes running. This is simply a clunky plot device.

Draupnir wrote: »

Your point re: the shared consciousness is wrong, when they are studying the plants at the start they get readings that there is a limited connection between the root they test and the next one, not that the singles relay entirely throughout the planet. There is never a hint that there is a shared conciousness between the Navi tribes or people.

I really dont care about another plot device like this, I was being facetious.

Draupnir wrote: »

Finally, how could you have an issue with the storyline based on the Navi language sounding a bit like something that excepts in reality?

Where did I mention I had an issue with it? Merely a note about how it sounds.

Anyway, back to the script, some examples of its failures:
Lines that are meant to give life to a character: "I need a cigarette. Wheres my cigarette?!?!"
Quasi-psycho-babble: "Everything is backwards now, like out there is the true world and in here is the dream"
Scene setting: "You are not in Kansas anymore. You are on Pandora"

This is all weak, weak stuff.

I don't expect any agreement in response, because you do seem to have enormous fan boy fervor. Whilst your obviously fertile imagination delights in exploring the world that Cameron has created, I don't feel that you are comparing this movie on a like for like with any other. More power to you lad, glad you enjoyed the show, I'm simply setting my stall out for why the script is awful in my opinion.

And finally, if Avatar wins best script/screenplay at the Oscars, I'll eat the server this forum exists on, or a replica. Cant say fairer than that

BlitzKrieg · 05-01-2010 12:06AM

From box office mojo (the very link you provided) only 16% of its total gross was made in its opening weekend.

compare to say

transformers 2, where it was 27%

or

New Moon where it was 49%

what about other sleeper hits

the hangover its also only 16% of its total gross in its opening weekend its also over its entire budget made back in the opening weekend.

but its still a sleeper hit.

If a film made less then 20% of its total gross in its opening weekend and went on to dwarf its own budget then its a sleeper hit.

The classic example is Home alone http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=homealone.htm

6% on opening weekend...almost made back its entire budget.

but went on to dwarf it in the following weeks

course there's also titanic http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=titanic.htm

don ramo · 05-01-2010 12:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

A sleeper hit is one which has long lasting box office appeal, a film which spends months in theaters bringing in a stead stream of money which is exactly what both The Matrix and Avatar did. Both have profited from positive word of mouth and people returning to see the film a number of times.

Take a film such as Twilight which had a massive opening weekend followed by a nearly 51% drop off in it's second week. This is exactly the opposite of a sleeper as it has limited box office appeal once the initial interest wares off.

i get ya now, sorry i miss interpreted what a sleeper hit was,

my bad

hick · 05-01-2010 01:29AM

Can't say Avatar is a sleeper hit in my opinion

A sleeper hit is a low to medium budget film that has not been marketed and gains traction in the medium term after it's release.

The Matrix is probably the best example of a big budget. The Wachowski brothers were almost psychotic about there being zero mention of the film during production and eased it into the cinemas to let it seep out to audiences where it gained massive momentum almost on it's own with marketing coming later to mop up the rest.

Juno was a good example recently, Parnormal activity is a manufactured sleeper hit, Shawshank is probably the best example, poor box office, critically slammed, and became, for a longtime, the top of every movie poll after it went to Video/DVD.

Avatar, to reopen the wound from a few pages ago, is one of the most heavily marketed films of all time, if at any point it was asleep, which I doubt, it was woken with a kick to the small of it's back and a bucket of ice cold water sloshed over it.

Vinyl bomb I will also have a portion of that server if this wins best script

opinion guy · 05-01-2010 01:35AM

hehehe.....montage.
can't hear that word without thinking of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIi0vFyqWAc

BlitzKrieg · 05-01-2010 01:56AM

Can't say Avatar is a sleeper hit in my opinion

my original post (which started the sleeper discussion) I stated avatar wasnt a sleeper hit in the traditional sense, but the numbers it was giving in the box office are the same as a sleeper hit.

BlitzKrieg · 05-01-2010 01:59AM

opinion guy wrote: »

hehehe.....montage.
can't hear that word without thinking of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIi0vFyqWAc

strangely I always think of the omaha beach landing in saving private ryan personnally but thats a different form of montage

ziggy · 05-01-2010 02:45AM

This post has been deleted.

TheRealist · 05-01-2010 05:37AM

I saw it t'other day, overall was very impressed. Took 20 mins or so to get used to the 3D but it was savage all the same.

Script was pretty good I suppose, although predictable and cheesy in parts. A bit Matrix Reloaded at times (not a good thing) they were pushing it a bit with the resurrection thing, reminded me of the "rave" scene in Matrix reloaded. Thought it could have had a bit more of an edge, the 12's rating didn't help.

Overall, good show. Always look forward to the James Cameron epics.

Overheal · 05-01-2010 05:39AM

Sleeper hit is such a bad term. some of us are just smart and go two weeks later once the theatre isnt packing em in like sardines. I like to watch my movie not someones mobile or a womans baby (who brings an infant to a midnight screening of Boondock ****ing Saints?!) Never been able to enjoy a movie on opening night, with few or no exceptions.

Mink · 05-01-2010 02:49PM

I'm probably repeating what others have said but jaysus I really loved Avatar. I've been to see it twice & I'd see it again if had the time.
I am not a 12 yr old boy, I'm a late 20's girl but probably a bit nerdy.

I already knew before going to see it that the plot & script wasn't going to be amazing but it had absolutely no bearing on me enjoying it. I'd also not seen any of the newer 3D movies, so it was a whole new experience for me. Don't bother seeing it if not in 3D.

I've never been so engrossed for 2 1/2 hours. It was also the most aesthetically pleasing movie I've seen IMO. Very beautifully done & seamless. Incredible animation/CGI.

I just can't wait for the DVD extras, making of etc. I'd be really interested in that.

I'm sure there is an Avatar 2 in the pipeline but I'm wondering will it just ruin the whole thing. I'd still go see it though.

This is probably the first movie that lived up to all the hype for me.

Mark Hamill · 05-01-2010 03:24PM

Draupnir wrote: »

Furthermore, the montage opens up the concept of the planet as some huge world with multiple eco systems (hinted at in the opening space scenes) and shows that it isn't an entirely forest world which makes the universe seem even more epic.

But doesnt it only take the main character about a day to fly around a planet somewhere near the size of earth and convince many different tribes (who have never seen him before, some who dont even use the bird/dragons that the Omaticayans use) to join him in a battle with humans they apparently haven't encountered?

Draupnir wrote: »

Your point re: the shared consciousness is wrong, when they are studying the plants at the start they get readings that there is a limited connection between the root they test and the next one, not that the singles relay entirely throughout the planet. There is never a hint that there is a shared conciousness between the Navi tribes or people.

Its is stated that the planet, just between the trees, has more interconnecting links than the human brain (Weavers character says this to Ribisis character to try to convince not to attack the Na'vi). The Na'vi also say that its possible to see the experiences of those who died by joining with one of the Tree of Souls, and since Jake managed to convince the the Tree to get the animals to help in the fight by telling it to look at Weavers characters memories, it means the planet (or at the least the tree biomas on it), is essentially sentient, and is connected to the animals living on it.

JP Liz · 05-01-2010 03:27PM

Is it best to see it in 3D only?

humanji · 05-01-2010 04:45PM

JP Liz wrote: »

Is it best to see it in 3D only?

I'd say so. The 3D effects are incredible to look at.

blubloblu · 05-01-2010 04:47PM

Spoiler: http://imgur.com/JmRmb

Raging Bob · 05-01-2010 04:51PM

JP Liz wrote: »

Is it best to see it in 3D only?

It's actually off-putting at times. I've been to a few 3D movies and I still ain't buying it. It's annoying and bizarrely takes away from my enjoyment of the film. I know I'm most probably in the minority here but that's my opinion.

Kipperhell · 05-01-2010 05:17PM

It really isn't very good but looks well. 3d is kind of fun but a well told story is pretty important. Considering how long the movie is they manage to tell a story pretty badly.
One thing I found just plain stupid was to have a character that smoked. Served no purpose and was actually unbelievable as there is no way you could being doing the same in present day as she was.

"Dances with Smurfs" is a pretty good name for this well trodden story done quite poorly

jaykhunter · 05-01-2010 05:28PM

JP Liz wrote: »

Is it best to see it in 3D only?

If you're only gonna see it once I'd recommend in 3D because it's leaps and bounds over every other 3D film i've seen from a technical standpoint. Even the ads before the film (like for Alice in Wonderland) looked pretty poor (in a 3d-effect sense) than Avatar.

That said, with 3D, they "tell you" where to focus your eye - so only part of the screen in a focus; so you get the most out of your 3D effect; and limit eye strain. Just focus on the bits that are sharp, and don't mind about the blurry bits.

That said seeing the film in 2D everything seems to be ultra-sharp, so if you loved it, consider seeing the repeat in 2D

As an aside, I imagine that like me, you won't be buying a 3DTV anytime soon (or even before the Avatar Blu-Ray comes out) and watching 3D at home (on a TV or HDTV) is abysmal! (So your viewing at home, if you buy it, will most likely be in 2D)

Galvasean · 05-01-2010 05:29PM

Um, the smoking bugged you that much, really?

lucianot · 05-01-2010 05:33PM

I haven't yet understood how those mountains float in Pandora.
Was it explained in the movie?

jaykhunter · 05-01-2010 06:12PM

I tried to come up with an answer, but no, I've no idea, because gravity is normal in some areas of Pandora... Here's what i think the answer is :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptJJAPL5vGA

:pac::pac::pac:

lucianot · 05-01-2010 06:42PM

I saw video on the 'Science of Pandora' and it doesn't explain it either, so maybe they really want us to shut-up :pac:. Just imagine, you find floating mountains that defy gravity and then you go and waste your time digging out some rare expensive element.

KerranJast · 05-01-2010 06:48PM

lucianot wrote: »

I saw video on the 'Science of Pandora' and it doesn't explain it either, so maybe they really want us to shut-up :pac:. Just imagine, you find floating mountains that defy gravity and then you go and waste your time digging out some rare expensive element.

It could be some combination of large concentrations of the unobtanium and other elements in that area that cause the floating mountains. Anti-gravity effect etc. No-one argues about hyperspace, warp speed, cryostasis, shipboard artificial gravity in other scifi. Why are ye so hung up on floating mountains?

hick · 05-01-2010 07:03PM

it's the same reason that there's a mile high tree of course :rolleyes:

lucianot · 05-01-2010 07:08PM

Well, something seems to defy the whole purpose of the plot, it's big as a mountain and floats and is not explained. Actually I think they did not have artificial gravity in the spaceship.
For the sake of sci-fi storytelling heritage, just give me one silly or one mumbo-jumbo explanation but please don't leave those giant rocks floating up there!
I was thinking on the advice "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." Probably its me only seeing the loaded rifle

L31mr0d · 05-01-2010 07:12PM

lucianot wrote: »

Was it explained in the movie?

Well if flux capacitors can make DeLoreans travel back in time I'm pretty sure it's equally possible that a flux vortex can suspend mountains in mid-air.

lucianot · 05-01-2010 07:15PM

Ok, I found this wiki on Pandora, it's the Meissner effect:
http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Hallelujah_Mountains

Is not about swallowing things just because 'it's fantasy'. The are selling a story based on the premise that is not magic, it's science, is going to change the cinema industry, etc, so one must expect it to be consistent somehow, at least the intention behind.

Avatar Superthread

Comments