Avatar

[Chino]

I still don't get it.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Star Wars?

[Chino]

Never saw it.

[Mister Gold]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

[sueño]

I ran across this link this morning.   Posting just in case Chino hasn't seen and is feeling like changing his pants again. ? 

https://inhabitat.com/disney-unveils-first-images-of-upcoming-avatar-land-park-inspired-by-pandora/

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=8953.msg1794362;topicseen#msg1794362

it's a different article..

[Grizz]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

Except natural special effects tend to age better than CGI (budget-dependent. See: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy TV Series, BBC). The non-CGI editions of Star Wars still look gloris.

[Chino]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

Except natural special effects tend to age better than CGI (budget-dependent. See: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy TV Series, BBC). The non-CGI editions of Star Wars still look gloris.

I can't really but into that. Jurassic Park's CGI will forever go down as one of the best accomplishments in the history of movie making. I am aware that Jurassic Park had a bunch of non-cgi stuff too.

[orcus116]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

Except Star Wars was considered revolutionary, no?

[Super Dude]

I ran across this link this morning.   Posting just in case Chino hasn't seen and is feeling like changing his pants again. ? 

https://inhabitat.com/disney-unveils-first-images-of-upcoming-avatar-land-park-inspired-by-pandora/

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=8953.msg1794362;topicseen#msg1794362

it's a different article..

Same images.

[Chino]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

Except Star Wars was considered revolutionary, no?

Are you implying Avatar wasn't?

[Implode]

It really wasn't. Star Wars was the first block buster. It changed the way movies were viewed forever. Avatar has done nothing but bring on another fad of 3D that's already lost its luster and is fading out.

[Kotowboy]

Yeah. Avatar took 4 years to make because it was in 3D.

[orcus116]

Never saw it.

Well, to put it in perspective, the effects in those films were to the late 70's and early 80's what Avatar was to the late 00's. You'd love it.

Except Star Wars was considered revolutionary, no?

Are you implying Avatar wasn't?

Outside of the heavy use of 3D, which as Implode mentioned never really took off, I didn't find anything in the movie that was considered revolutionary. Just another CGI heavy blockbuster.

[Kotowboy]

Watch the 90 minute making of and report back .

[orcus116]

I won't because I'm wasn't terribly interested in the finished product in the first place.

[Kotowboy]

Then you can't say it wasn't revolutionary when you know nothing about it.


 

[Super Dude]

Then you can't say it wasn't revolutionary when you know nothing about it.


 

I haven't seen the whole doc, but if taking a peek inside the hood is where you have to start in order to figure out what's revolutionary about something, it's probably not revolutionary. You can tell what makes Star Wars great just at face value, it doesn't take any look at the special effects wizardry behind it, even if that is pretty incredible in its own right.

[bosk1]

As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Look, if you like Avatar, that's cool.  But there really isn't anything "revolutionary" about it.

[orcus116]

Then you can't say it wasn't revolutionary when you know nothing about it.


 

Revolutionary would imply a change across all of Hollywood. There hasn't been one as a result of Avatar.

[bosk1]

And as also frequently happens...er, I mean...I guess there's a first time for everything, because Orcus nailed it too. 

[orcus116]

I'm going to hang that post on my fridge.

[bosk1]

[hefdaddy42]

Look, if you like Avatar, that's cool.  But there really isn't anything "revolutionary" about it.

This exactly.

Hey, it was a fun experience for the most part.  But revolutionary?

[Mister Gold]

I'm with Super Dude, Orcus and Bosk on this. While Avatar certainly instigated the recent 3D fad, to compare it to the original Star Wars film(s) in being revolutionary to the film industry is a stretch.

Except natural special effects tend to age better than CGI (budget-dependent. See: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy TV Series, BBC). The non-CGI editions of Star Wars still look gloris.

I can't really but into that. Jurassic Park's CGI will forever go down as one of the best accomplishments in the history of movie making. I am aware that Jurassic Park had a bunch of non-cgi stuff too.

Actually Grizz is spot-on with that statement, Chino. Natural special effects generally will age better than CGI. That's because CGI shares a common issue with a lot of video games; it's always being improved upon. As a result, most CGI effects that look "incredibly realistic" now will end up becoming incredibly obvious CGI five years later. 

Natural special effects, on the other hand, are real/physical. That lends itself to visually holding up down the road... so long as you don't see any of the strings.

I actually just watched Jurassic Park for the first time in years the other day and I noticed that, while the effects were generally awesome, there were also moments where you could really tell it was just CGI. Sure, sometimes it can hold up and have a fair amount of longevity, but it takes a lot more work to pull it off than what most filmmakers do with CGI.

[Kotowboy]

Well - revolutionary or not - there were brand new cameras and film making techniques invented purely for that movie.

[jammindude]

I wouldn't call it revolutionary....yet.

I think time will tell about 3D.    3D is experiencing a lull because it really *only* looks good when it's done well.   Retro-fits (which is what most movies are) aren't nearly as immersive, and don't look nearly as good.   Whereas something like Avatar (which was actually filmed in 3D) looked really amazing.     For as much as the storyline is massively cookie cutter and contrived, the film actually looks incredible. 

Now, ******IF****** real 3D eventually becomes cheaper to make the correct way, then Avatar will become "revolutionary" by default as being the first film that did it.   

[orcus116]

Immersive to me isn't like walking around on a set and looking at actors. Immersive to me is actually giving a shit about what is going on.

[Kotowboy]

i've never seen a retrofitted or post converted 3D film that looked good.

Even James Cameron said that Titanic 3D " wasn't really 3D " because it was converted after the fact.

Post converted 3D just looks like a pop up book and things that are meant to look huge just look tiny.

Best 3D films i've seen :

1.Avatar
2.Prometheus
3.The Hobbit & Desolation of Smaug ( also loved 48fps - but that's a different thread ).
4.Life of Pi - but that was made purely to show off 3D.

[Kotowboy]

Immersive to me isn't like walking around on a set and looking at actors. Immersive to me is actually giving a shit about what is going on.

Also this. 3D is awesome for sci fi but for any other genre it's kind of redundant.

[Mister Gold]

Immersive to me isn't like walking around on a set and looking at actors. Immersive to me is actually giving a shit about what is going on.

This guy gets it.

[Super Dude]

As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Look, if you like Avatar, that's cool.  But there really isn't anything "revolutionary" about it.

Aaaaand sigged.

Immersive to me isn't like walking around on a set and looking at actors. Immersive to me is actually giving a shit about what is going on.

This guy gets it.

Yep. You really can't oversell how Star Wars, along with the Spielberg films of the time, began a new era of Hollywood films. Before that we had the Silent Era, the Golden Age, and New Hollywood. Star Wars, almost singlehandedly, set off an entire new evolutionary stage in American film history. As in, academics and film historians mark Star Wars as the milestone where the "blockbuster" era begins. More than that, we're only now exiting that stage, almost 40 years later. That's a longer period than the Golden Age itself (1934-1966). As much as Avatar has been a success, it can't quite lay claim to that.

[hefdaddy42]

I think technically Jaws was the first blockbuster (if you are talking about box office numbers).

[Kotowboy]

Yes it was.

[Super Dude]

I think technically Jaws was the first blockbuster (if you are talking about box office numbers).

I didn't know that, interesting. Well regardless, it still fits: Lucas and Spielberg jointly kicked off the style of filmmaking that would launch the blockbuster era.

[Implode]

Didn't think about Jaws. Good point. And yes, Avatar probably did cause a lot of money and engineering to go into technology for filming, but it hasn't been revolutionary to culture in the same way that Star Wars was. Movies like Jaws and Star Wars changed what types of movies were made. As far as I can tell, Avatar hasn't.