Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Jouni Hätinen wrote: He didn't say ALL American audience, he said AN American audience used to Michael Bay movies, which in my understanding means a part of American audience that is used to Michael Bay movies. Can you please at least learn to read your own language. I assure you I have no trouble reading the English language. So, am I to understand that other than American audiences are not permitted to view Michael Bay movies ?! It is really no big deal, but the comment inappropriately singled out Americans and the syntax details you point out are irrelevant in attempting to negate that fact. I simply tried to take a humorous/sarcastic approach to pointing out a comment that was not very well thought out, to say the least. This is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with Realsoft or 3D graphics anymore. Not sure that has ever mattered very much, on this list. Anyway, I know many very nice and smart American people. But then again, Americans voted for Bush twice so, I cannot decide :-) I am not likely to be considered either but at least I did not vote for Bush either time. Regards, Zaug
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
I enjoyed the latest Transformer, it was quiet a ride. Sometimes all we want is a little action, just to relax. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Ok, I went to see the non-3D version of the movie Avatar. Here's my take: Pros: -animations, especially character animations are light years ahead of Beowulf -details, everything you would have in real life is there (sometimes a bit more) -special effects, water and fire look real enough to fool anyone -cinematography, just perfect for an action film, not too exaggerated Cons: -materials, still most of the things, especially skin, looks like plastic -plot (B level) -dialogue (poor even with B standards) -acting (B, except for Sig) First 1/3 of the movie looked stunning at times, but I wouldn't call it a giant leap for cinema. Considering that it's probably the most expensive movie of all time, I can expect nothing else but spectacular from the audiovisual department (enough money can make any movie look very good). Plot-wise I wouldn't watch it again and I wasn't enjoying that even for the first time. However, I will probably go watch it again in 3D at some point, because this is certainly a film worth watching in 3D. Also, after that I can have better opinion on does the novelty of the visual splendour wear off after couple of times. I hope to watch only the first half though, because most of the good-looking scenes are there and the plot and dialogue were so stupid I don't want to experience them again. BR, Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Funny, never considered working in marketing because I could not sell what I don't like. I was so impressed and transported by this movie that's all. Just wanted to share my experience. Have you seen it? For years I have been criticizing CG movies and now finally a beautiful cg photoreal movie. While watching the movie I heard people almost orgasming in awe and making weird noises you don't usually hear in a theater and people applauded at the end. There is a scene in the beginning of the movie that is so graphically beautiful that I had tears in my eyes. Never experience that before. Until very recently, most young people had never seen StarWars on a giant screen. For 20 years the only way to watch StarWars was on VHS and an small ugly TV. Many people will wait for the Avatar DVD or Blue-Ray version and will see it in 2D, they will never understand or live the true experience of watching it in 3D on a giant screen. Imax movies are best watched in Imax theaters, Vector graphic video games are best experienced on an XY monitor. Opera looses it's appeal when seen on TV. Sadly for now, nothing beat the theater for watching movies. I have an HD DLP projector at home and my 10 feet screen is not enough compared to 50+ feet. 60 HDTV are small, really small I never watch movies on HDTV. HDTV is the poor man cinema. HDTV is pathetic. I can see in 180 degree and I want a screen that match my visual range. Why limiting ourselves to screen, why not go full 360. The target is full immersion not watching a screen. What I am saying is that it is best to watch things on their targeted medium. Polar Express was a masterpiece on Imax3D and only a good movie on blu-ray anaglyph. Anyway I am glad that 3D has finally returned back to movies after 50 years of absence. Avatar is not 100% CG, it is a mix of cg and traditional miniatures. Common CG industry, wake up, there is still work to do, Your 3D software are not capable of creating a full 100% pure cg movie. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Hätinen wrote: Are you, or have you ever considered working in marketing :-P -Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Yesterday I saw Avatar in Dolby3D. From my experience I prefer Dolby3D to RealD. Dolby3D is more painful to the eyes, but the image is much brighter and bigger. This movie is not a movie, it is an experience and a sensual one, you feel everything like you were there. Avatar is so far ahead (technically and in the way it is directed) that it will take years to come close if it ever happened. James Cameron just owned all the masters including Stanley Kubrick. I have never seen to this day a movie so perfectly directed. Everything has a meaning, a mass, a smell, a touch, a purpose. The most impressive technical innovation in Avatar is the facial expressions (eyes, lips, thong, skin, muscle...). Avatar is not a movie it is real, Even for a technical guy like me, this was pure magic. Avatar is the first photoreal CG movie in the world that has: sharp, super bright and colorful images. In other movies they use the usual dark images, desaturated colors and blurred images. Go live this movie in 3D theaters now, This movie is an experience of a lifetime and the DVD/BlueRay version will never do justice to the silver screen version. Congratulation James Cameron you just made Christmas magic again. Thank you. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
True Jouni, Dialogs are sometimes over simplistic and childish (remember this movie is mostly for an American audience used to Michael Bay movies). Story is predictable, it's Titanic all over again. Skin shader look more like candle wax mixed with leather. CG sex scene could have been more explicit. I noticed while watching the trailer in 2D that the "real scenes and actors" have been made to look more unrealistic, closer to CG. Maybe to smooth the gap between cg and real. The most beautiful scenes are at the beginning but all the action is at the end. The best acting in the movie is the evil military boss and Sig. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Htinen wrote: Ok, I went to see the non-3D version of the movie Avatar. Here's my take: Pros: -animations, especially character animations are light years ahead of Beowulf -details, everything you would have in real life is there (sometimes a bit more) -special effects, water and fire look real enough to fool anyone -cinematography, just perfect for an action film, not too exaggerated Cons: -materials, still most of the things, especially skin, looks like plastic -plot (B level) -dialogue (poor even with B standards) -acting (B, except for Sig) First 1/3 of the movie looked stunning at times, but I wouldn't call it a giant leap for cinema. Considering that it's probably the most expensive movie of all time, I can expect nothing else but spectacular from the audiovisual department (enough money can make any movie look very good). Plot-wise I wouldn't watch it again and I wasn't enjoying that even for the first time. However, I will probably go watch it again in 3D at some point, because this is certainly a film worth watching in 3D. Also, after that I can have better opinion on does the novelty of the visual splendour wear off after couple of times. I hope to watch only the first half though, because most of the good-looking scenes are there and the plot and dialogue were so stupid I don't want to experience them again. BR, Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Funny, never considered working in marketing because I could not sell what I don't like. I was so impressed and transported by this movie that's all. Just wanted to share my experience. Have you seen it? For years I have been criticizing CG movies and now finally a beautiful cg photoreal movie. While watching the movie I heard people almost orgasming in awe and making weird noises you don't usually hear in a theater and people applauded at the end. There is a scene in the beginning of the movie that is so graphically beautiful that I had tears in my eyes. Never experience that before. Until very recently, most young people had never seen StarWars on a giant screen. For 20 years the only way to watch StarWars was on VHS and an small ugly TV. Many people will wait for the Avatar DVD or Blue-Ray version and will see it in 2D, they will never understand or live the true experience of watching it in 3D on a giant screen. Imax movies are best watched in Imax theaters, Vector graphic video games are best experienced on an XY monitor. Opera looses it's appeal when seen on TV. Sadly for now, nothing beat the theater for watching movies. I have an HD DLP projector at home and my 10 feet screen is not enough compared to 50+ feet. 60" HDTV are small, really small I never watch movies on HDTV. HDTV is the poor man cinema. HDTV is pathetic. I can see in 180 degree and I want a screen that match my visual range. Why limiting ourselves to screen, why not go full 360. The target is full immersion not watching a screen. What I am saying is that it is best to watch things on their targeted medium. Polar Express was a masterpiece on Imax3D and only a good movie on blu-ray anaglyph. Anyway I am glad that 3D has finally returned back to movies after 50 years of absence. Avatar is not 100% CG, it is a mix of cg and traditional miniatures. Common CG industry, wake up, there is still work to do, Your 3D software are not capable of creating a full 100% pure cg movie. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Htinen wrote: Are you, or have you ever considered working in marketing :-P -Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Yesterday I saw Avatar in Dolby3D. >From my experience I prefer Dolby3D to RealD. Dolby3D is more painful to the eyes, but the image is much brighter and bigger. This movie is not a movie, it is an experience and a sensual one, you feel everything like you were there. Avatar is so far ahead (technically and in the way it is directed) that it will take years to come close if it ever happened. James Cameron just owned all the masters including Stanley Kubrick. I have never seen to this day a movie so perfectly directed. Everything has a meaning, a mass, a smell, a touch, a purpose. The most impressive technical innovation in Avatar is the facial expressions (eyes, lips, thong, skin, muscle...). Avatar
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Yeah, the actor of the military boss was good too, kinda reminded me of the guy from Apocalypse Now! (I love the smell of napalm in the morning.) The other actors could've been ok too, but their characters were just too one-sided and predictable. Of course same thing for Sig's character, but she's so good actress she could hide it well (and the military guy was just too cool ;-) In the first ten, fifteen minutes I was actually surprised of the setting and plot and started to expect a very good film, but then the story began and it plunged. I had the same feeling with Wall-E; the first half hour was something I have never seen before, but after that oh boy... I always think when people make movies, they should ask themselves in every scene: How would I do this if the movie started from here? Because it seems that the beginnings of movies are a lot more emotional, informative and well-crafted than the other parts. For example, when Sig's character said What's missing from this picture? in the beginning of the film, it told me more of the character than anything she said or did after that. Talking about breakthrough in cinema I would have to say no to Avatar, because many things, although very very beautiful, are works of huge budget and lots of time. It will be very difficult for other film makers to adapt anything from this movie, because it takes a lot of money to do something similar. Of course the cinematography and other things are top-notch, and probably good study material for any film maker, but still I feel like 10/10 (visually) doesn't make breakthrough this time. At least not in same way Kubrik's 2001 did. BUT if 3D has come to stay, this is The benchmark for all future 3D films, and I bet it will stay that way for some years. So, I'm waiting to see this film in 3D, although I did have some headache in the 2D version also, so I should be expecting more to come in 3D. But I guess it's worth it, at least for 1 time. I'm still waiting for real 3D though, where you don't need glasses and things look different depending on where you look from :-) Now THAT would be breakthrough in film making. Jouni 2009/12/26 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: True Jouni, Dialogs are sometimes over simplistic and childish (remember this movie is mostly for an American audience used to Michael Bay movies). Story is predictable, it's Titanic all over again. Skin shader look more like candle wax mixed with leather. CG sex scene could have been more explicit. I noticed while watching the trailer in 2D that the real scenes and actors have been made to look more unrealistic, closer to CG. Maybe to smooth the gap between cg and real. The most beautiful scenes are at the beginning but all the action is at the end. The best acting in the movie is the evil military boss and Sig. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Hätinen wrote: Ok, I went to see the non-3D version of the movie Avatar. Here's my take: Pros: -animations, especially character animations are light years ahead of Beowulf -details, everything you would have in real life is there (sometimes a bit more) -special effects, water and fire look real enough to fool anyone -cinematography, just perfect for an action film, not too exaggerated Cons: -materials, still most of the things, especially skin, looks like plastic -plot (B level) -dialogue (poor even with B standards) -acting (B, except for Sig) First 1/3 of the movie looked stunning at times, but I wouldn't call it a giant leap for cinema. Considering that it's probably the most expensive movie of all time, I can expect nothing else but spectacular from the audiovisual department (enough money can make any movie look very good). Plot-wise I wouldn't watch it again and I wasn't enjoying that even for the first time. However, I will probably go watch it again in 3D at some point, because this is certainly a film worth watching in 3D. Also, after that I can have better opinion on does the novelty of the visual splendour wear off after couple of times. I hope to watch only the first half though, because most of the good-looking scenes are there and the plot and dialogue were so stupid I don't want to experience them again. BR, Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Funny, never considered working in marketing because I could not sell what I don't like. I was so impressed and transported by this movie that's all. Just wanted to share my experience. Have you seen it? For years I have been criticizing CG movies and now finally a beautiful cg photoreal movie. While watching the movie I heard people almost orgasming in awe and making weird noises you don't usually hear in a theater and people applauded at the end. There is a scene in the beginning of the movie that is so graphically beautiful that I had tears in my eyes. Never experience that before. Until very recently, most young people
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Please don't take this article too seriously it's full of sarcasm and irony. A world full of idiots and sometimes brilliants people like the people on this very list. Michael Bay is the bad director of trash like Transformer and Perl Harbor. The only talent of Michael Bay is filming explosions and moving action. about the simplistic American audience : The same thing could be said about Canada and Europe, the intellectual cowards that never want to get their hands dirty. Waiting for Americans to save their asses. And they will have to do it again soon to save you from the Islamist jihad. Europe is so full of principles and moral, letting the Nazi drink their wine as a good gentlemen gesture. Until one day they wake up knee deep in trouble. Trouble they pretended does not exist until they have a knives up their throat. Go ahead Europe pretend that your people being beaten and raped is just a cultural exchange. Canada giving moral lessons to the Americans, common, there is not even freedom of speech in Canada. Television in here is a one way communist brainwashing, at least in USA there is at minimum 2 point of view on tv and radio. My definition of communism is: government is good and shut up or we will send you to prison if you don't agree. Here in Canada we produce 98% of boring movies for boring Canadian people. And in my province of Quebec all movies have pissing, shitting, menstruating, masturbation and abortion scenes (and I am no joking, all of them, always). In Quebec all men in movies are cowards and stupid while all women are intelligent, strong and feminist. And look at the quebecois movie goers : pathetic anti-american, anti-english speaking loosers. Typical movies produced in Quebec : -They failed at the end, no victory -Must contain some more or less subtle communist ideology ($$$environent$$$ would be the same) -Must not have any form of special effects -No guns, because only bad people use guns. -Women are fat-ugly as hell (because it look more real) -Actors are also ugly (no shower for weeks) -The image quality must be the lowest possible with film grain as big as snow -Violence is psychological -Must contain a close up of a dead animal with a stupid reflection on life and death. Then the artist community are all in awe that our inferior nation of Quebec does better movies than the evil Americans with all their money. The truth is that now I only watch American movies. Tired of all the intellectual bullshit, need some simple violence to solve problems. Funny fact about people from Quebec : the only taboo in Quebec is money. Making money is a sin. Speaking english is also a taboo. Thats why I am persecuted by one of my teacher at school (yes i am now studying Industrial Drawing), because I dare understand English. In my province a pedophile tv star will not go to jail nor be punished at all if he is a separatist, but if a federalist dare to say something on radio he will lose everything forever. So even if my own place is filled with idiots, that does not mean there is not a minority of brilliant people hiding from the well intentioned idiots. My point is that the masses (everywhere in the world) are driven by simple and basic needs reflected by the simplicity of movies. And when a movie needs to satisfy everyone, you need to lower the standards. James Cameron knew this and made a simple plot but surrounded by a complex untold story scattered around (story of the Pandora's world). Producers are grotesque people with bad taste (did someone says ugly j), but directors need them to finance their movies. Producers know that love story bring a more idealist audience (a more feminine one) while tits and action will attract Joe the plumber. Guys like us doing CG with a passion for cinema are a minority. And we are the only one understanding fully their work. The more simple and stupid a religion/sect is, the more member it will get. Well, this is not true. Ok so not in the case of a religion because there are exceptions. I said that American audience is stupid, but when compared to the other part of the world they don't look so bad. American audience like to win at the end of the movie, the bad guy get punished. The hero will get laid at the end, but we won't see that (sex is evil, violence is good). Anyway, soon there will be a global government takeover lead by a god named Obama, yes the United Nations will take power (helped by fake $global$ $warming$ and $climate$ $change). We will all be slaves to the new world order. Obama is destroying the last beacon of light on this earth by destroying the American Constitution. Soon we will be all the same nation soon Wow I am going too far. : ) I am Canadian and I consider myself as an right-wing confederate American, I have nothing in common with Canadians. Hope someone enjoyed this yet an other stupid elucubration by me Good night.
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
He didn't say ALL American audience, he said AN American audience used to Michael Bay movies, which in my understanding means a part of American audience that is used to Michael Bay movies. Can you please at least learn to read your own language. This is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with Realsoft or 3D graphics anymore. Anyway, I know many very nice and smart American people. But then again, Americans voted for Bush twice so, I cannot decide :-) Cheers, Jouni 2009/12/27 Zaug z...@catmtn.com: Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: Dialogs are sometimes over simplistic and childish (remember this movie is mostly for an American audience used to Michael Bay movies). I do not even know who Michael Bay is (perhaps I am just too simple), but glad to know your opinion of Americans. Yes, it is true, me included, an entire country of clinical morons just sitting around wondering what to do with all of our free time. Good thing there are movies like this for us to go see and geniuses like you to explain them. CheerZ!, Zaug
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
This thread was fun but I agree it went too far away from 3D again. lol And since I am never serious when writing about anything other than 3D ... All this chat was a waste of time for everyone. Sorry. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Htinen wrote: He didn't say "ALL American audience", he said "AN American audience used to Michael Bay movies", which in my understanding means a part of American audience that is used to Michael Bay movies. Can you please at least learn to read your own language. This is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with Realsoft or 3D graphics anymore. Anyway, I know many very nice and smart American people. But then again, Americans voted for Bush twice so, I cannot decide :-) Cheers, Jouni 2009/12/27 Zaug z...@catmtn.com: Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: Dialogs are sometimes over simplistic and childish (remember this movie is mostly for an American audience used to Michael Bay movies). I do not even know who Michael Bay is (perhaps I am just too simple), but glad to know your opinion of Americans. Yes, it is true, me included, an entire country of clinical morons just sitting around wondering what to do with all of our free time. Good thing there are movies like this for us to go see and geniuses like you to explain them. CheerZ!, Zaug
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
And sorry from me for being inconsiderate. I always talk first and think after ;-) To all CGI lovers: go watch Avatar. -Jouni 2009/12/27 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: This thread was fun but I agree it went too far away from 3D again. lol And since I am never serious when writing about anything other than 3D ... All this chat was a waste of time for everyone. Sorry. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Hätinen wrote: He didn't say ALL American audience, he said AN American audience used to Michael Bay movies, which in my understanding means a part of American audience that is used to Michael Bay movies. Can you please at least learn to read your own language. This is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with Realsoft or 3D graphics anymore. Anyway, I know many very nice and smart American people. But then again, Americans voted for Bush twice so, I cannot decide :-) Cheers, Jouni 2009/12/27 Zaug z...@catmtn.com: Jean-Sebastien Perron wrote: Dialogs are sometimes over simplistic and childish (remember this movie is mostly for an American audience used to Michael Bay movies). I do not even know who Michael Bay is (perhaps I am just too simple), but glad to know your opinion of Americans. Yes, it is true, me included, an entire country of clinical morons just sitting around wondering what to do with all of our free time. Good thing there are movies like this for us to go see and geniuses like you to explain them. CheerZ!, Zaug
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Are you, or have you ever considered working in marketing :-P -Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Yesterday I saw Avatar in Dolby3D. From my experience I prefer Dolby3D to RealD. Dolby3D is more painful to the eyes, but the image is much brighter and bigger. This movie is not a movie, it is an experience and a sensual one, you feel everything like you were there. Avatar is so far ahead (technically and in the way it is directed) that it will take years to come close if it ever happened. James Cameron just owned all the masters including Stanley Kubrick. I have never seen to this day a movie so perfectly directed. Everything has a meaning, a mass, a smell, a touch, a purpose. The most impressive technical innovation in Avatar is the facial expressions (eyes, lips, thong, skin, muscle...). Avatar is not a movie it is real, Even for a technical guy like me, this was pure magic. Avatar is the first photoreal CG movie in the world that has: sharp, super bright and colorful images. In other movies they use the usual dark images, desaturated colors and blurred images. Go live this movie in 3D theaters now, This movie is an experience of a lifetime and the DVD/BlueRay version will never do justice to the silver screen version. Congratulation James Cameron you just made Christmas magic again. Thank you. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws
Re: James Cameron's Avatar : giant leap for cinema.
Funny, never considered working in marketing because I could not sell what I don't like. I was so impressed and transported by this movie that's all. Just wanted to share my experience. Have you seen it? For years I have been criticizing CG movies and now finally a beautiful cg photoreal movie. While watching the movie I heard people almost orgasming in awe and making weird noises you don't usually hear in a theater and people applauded at the end. There is a scene in the beginning of the movie that is so graphically beautiful that I had tears in my eyes. Never experience that before. Until very recently, most young people had never seen StarWars on a giant screen. For 20 years the only way to watch StarWars was on VHS and an small ugly TV. Many people will wait for the Avatar DVD or Blue-Ray version and will see it in 2D, they will never understand or live the true experience of watching it in 3D on a giant screen. Imax movies are best watched in Imax theaters, Vector graphic video games are best experienced on an XY monitor. Opera looses it's appeal when seen on TV. Sadly for now, nothing beat the theater for watching movies. I have an HD DLP projector at home and my 10 feet screen is not enough compared to 50+ feet. 60" HDTV are small, really small I never watch movies on HDTV. HDTV is the poor man cinema. HDTV is pathetic. I can see in 180 degree and I want a screen that match my visual range. Why limiting ourselves to screen, why not go full 360. The target is full immersion not watching a screen. What I am saying is that it is best to watch things on their targeted medium. Polar Express was a masterpiece on Imax3D and only a good movie on blu-ray anaglyph. Anyway I am glad that 3D has finally returned back to movies after 50 years of absence. Avatar is not 100% CG, it is a mix of cg and traditional miniatures. Common CG industry, wake up, there is still work to do, Your 3D software are not capable of creating a full 100% pure cg movie. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws Jouni Htinen wrote: Are you, or have you ever considered working in marketing :-P -Jouni 2009/12/24 Jean-Sebastien Perron j...@neuroworld.ws: Yesterday I saw Avatar in Dolby3D. >From my experience I prefer Dolby3D to RealD. Dolby3D is more painful to the eyes, but the image is much brighter and bigger. This movie is not a movie, it is an experience and a sensual one, you feel everything like you were there. Avatar is so far ahead (technically and in the way it is directed) that it will take years to come close if it ever happened. James Cameron just owned all the masters including Stanley Kubrick. I have never seen to this day a movie so perfectly directed. Everything has a meaning, a mass, a smell, a touch, a purpose. The most impressive technical innovation in Avatar is the facial expressions (eyes, lips, thong, skin, muscle...). Avatar is not a movie it is real, Even for a technical guy like me, this was pure magic. Avatar is the first photoreal CG movie in the world that has: sharp, super bright and colorful images. In other movies they use the usual dark images, desaturated colors and blurred images. Go live this movie in 3D theaters now, This movie is an experience of a lifetime and the DVD/BlueRay version will never do justice to the silver screen version. Congratulation James Cameron you just made Christmas magic again. Thank you. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.NeuroWorld.ws
