Comments | cxc: Avatar

cxc

Avatar

Feb 03, 2010 12:35

NOTE: This is sorta-kinda-not really a continuation of a previous post. Wasn't sure if I wanted to write this all down or not, but I did it on a forum elsewhere and figured I might as well repost here. So here goes (and sorry for the strong language):Here's the thing(s) about Avatar ( Read more... )

Comments 7

stoopidfresh February 3 2010, 18:29:14 UTC

That's a pretty solid assessment. The "white man's guilt" (or "White Messiah") formula is time-tested plot candy that's put up to make an action/drama movie look "enlightened". But then, Avatar isn't offering up much more than that--eye candy on that scale can't be expected to offer up TOO much more than plot candy, at least not these days, or viewers and reviewers get too confused about things like "genre ( ... )

cxc February 3 2010, 21:03:27 UTC

Regarding the spaceship shot, I see what you're saying but I don't buy it. You have to consider the relative distances. The ship was MUCH much much closer to the viewer than the planet (if not, then that means the ship is huge enough to wreak gravitational havoc on the planet's tides, etc.), so just considering the lenses needed for such a shot, a wider interocular (the distance between the Left and Right view) would not be unreasonable. Yes, a larger IO might contribute toward miniaturization effects, but I think a slightly wider spacing would have been the lesser of two evils in this case, especially since the opposite is done for closeups.

Anyway, wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't immediately blown out the positive parallax (depth into, rather than coming out from, the screen) in that interior shot.

As for the creature designs, I guess I've just played too much Final Fantasy.

stoopidfresh February 4 2010, 04:07:03 UTC

I hear you, especially on the overblown interior shot. And honestly when they showed the space shot my first thought was, "shit, the 3D effect stopped working". I even tilted up my glasses. I suppose my afterthought was, if the ship and planet were both intended to be very far from the viewer, the right and left eyes wouldn't register much differently at all. But from a continuity standpoint they should have given it a bit more.

Images from my old Viewmaster reel of "The Black Hole" keep springing to mind...

noraboo February 3 2010, 21:05:37 UTC

I wish you made these posts in the Office instead of just spamming dieselfruit. xP

lianimal February 5 2010, 21:57:11 UTC

I saw it in regular old 2-D and I'm not schooled in digital media but I had some gripes about the CGI (for lack of more correct terms) myself. There were a few blips I noticed where things just looked like they needed a retouch. I think it was one of the first scenes with the flying creatures where it stood out the most and while it doesn't jump out as much as a cigarette burn it just seemed a little sloppy. If it was my movie it would have pissed me off.

I will say that I do like the fact that you can still use the old Ripley dies joke.

cxc February 6 2010, 05:40:24 UTC

The thing that bugged me about the CG was that it looked like most of the particle effects had no motion blur. That's fine for slow motion, but when some burly hexapod creature is kicking up dirt and crap right into the camera, you don't need to see the sharp outline of every clod of sod. Cameron's CG crew should have done some research by standing in front of the exhaust of a wood chipper while it does it's thing-- I'm pretty sure they would have noticed that the shards of wood flying out of that thing aren't as sharp in real life as they'd be in Pandora.

dratomic February 7 2010, 23:16:45 UTC

Can't disagree with you on any points. I noticed blips in the 3D, and it's certainly not something I'm schooled in -- so that's obviously a problem. And the whole "white man's guilt" thing, and the crappy excuses for characterization, felt lazy -- even for James Cameron, a director/writer who, in the past, has thrived on shortcuts ( ... )