James Cameron's FernGully

[Sara]

[quote name='Gavin'][CENTER][SIZE=1][IMG]http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg[/IMG]
[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[/QUOTE]Can we as a culture please stop plastering the word "FAIL" over any faintly amusing image?

[James]

[quote name='John']Using a formula is one thing, but what we have here is the same method that highschoolers use to avoid getting caught for plagiarism in their essays.
[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I get that, I just think it's a generally weak criticism. If you classify Avatar as having plagiarized, say...Pocahontas, you would really have to include a number of other successful (and often solid) films within that description.

I think it's kind of sad when people reduce the film to these kind of simplistic and sarcastic comparisons. Films like Star Wars and even Kill Bill could be lumped into this group if one were to be cynical (actually George Lucas talked about this very subject only recently). At least those films have largely escaped it (although SW didn't in its day) due to nostalgia and, in part, because in those cases people prefer to examine the whole experience and the interplay of different elements (many of which are not strictly script-based) in an effort to be fair to those films.

In any case, I did think the story was pretty average...but I was also constantly entertained by what was a really visceral, unprecedented experience. That definitely counts for something, especially if you look up "Pandora depression". :catgirl:[/font]

[rotlung]

[quote name='James'][FONT=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I get that, I just think it's a generally weak criticism. If you classify Avatar as having plagiarized, say...Pocahontas, you would really have to include a number of other successful (and often solid) films within that description.[/FONT]

[FONT=franklin gothic medium]I think it's kind of sad when people reduce the film to these kind of simplistic and sarcastic comparisons. Films like Star Wars and even Kill Bill could be lumped into this group if one were to be cynical (actually George Lucas talked about this very subject only recently). At least those films have largely escaped it (although SW didn't in its day) due to nostalgia and, in part, because in those cases people prefer to examine the whole experience and the interplay of different elements (many of which are not strictly script-based) in an effort to be fair to those films.[/FONT]

[FONT=franklin gothic medium]In any case, I did think the story was pretty average...but I was also constantly entertained by what was a really visceral, unprecedented experience. That definitely counts for something, especially if you look up "Pandora depression". :catgirl:[/FONT][/quote]


Hate to be the one to break it to you but people group things. We group animals, people, minerals, movies books and pretty much everything. People generally group things that relate to each other. In the case that has been pointed out here Avatar has been grouped with Fern Gully, Pocahatas, Dances with Wolves and basically any other movie that points out the importance of nature by learning from the "locals".

I point is just laugh off the similarities and enjoy the movie. I understand that you could make a lot of movies fit into that very general frame of a movie report but it's funny the way it was presented.

[Sara]

[quote name='rotlung']In the case that has been pointed out here Avatar has been grouped with Fern Gully, Pocahatas, Dances with Wolves and basically any other movie that points out the importance of nature by learning from the "locals". [/QUOTE][font=helvetica]I think there is a point where a story crosses the line between ripping off a story or stories and contributing to a budding genre. Personally, I couldn't say where that line is, and I can't offer an opinion of which side [i]Avatar[/i] falls on.

But clearly, not every giant robot anime is a ripoff of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantor]Gigantor[/url]. It may have started off that way: "Hey, big robots are doing well. Make one of those!" "But that's [i]copying[/i]..." "Then you're getting paid to copy. Get started!"

Eventually, what started as a small pool off take-offs and coincidentally similar ideas became something more. As more stories were added, the "legitimacy" (for lack of a better word) of giant robots grew. You like giant robots? Then you can tell a giant robot story. They're huge, potentially deadly machines. Sometimes there are kids involved. Generally, they save the world?or at least, some part of it.

With these elements (and twists thereon) you can tell any story from [i]Macross[/i] to [i]Evangelion[/i] to [i]The Iron Giant[/i].

So while [i]Avatar[/i] has elements (and storylines) in common with works ranging from [i]Pocahontas[/i] to [i]Dune[/i] to [i]The Core[/i], ([url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Avatar]check out tvtropes if you've got a few hours to kill[/url]), I think it's interesting that opinion seems pretty much split as to whether or not the film is a rip-off or simply "a new twist on an old story"?that is, part of a genre.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth]Or maybe everything's the same damn story, anyway.[/url]

[size=1](To be honest, "giant robots" was a bad choice of example, because I frankly know very little about them.)[/size][/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Gavin'][CENTER][SIZE=1][IMG]http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/epic-fail-avatar-plot-fail.jpg[/IMG]
[/SIZE][/CENTER]
[SIZE=1]
+1 for Matt Bateman
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] [img]http://i45.tinypic.com/jtrp92.jpg[/img]

It's called the hero's journey[/font]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]And that kind of demonstrates why those images are only funny the [i]first[/i] thousand times you see them. After a while, they get old. And when posted in a semi-serious discussion, they're almost embarassing.

One of the things I've noticed - in terms of criticism of Avatar - is that the film apparently uses "too much CGI" (and really, what is "too much"? What about all-CGI movies that are entirely animated?)

What I find most interesting is that James Cameron's use of CGI in Avatar is characterized by some as betraying a kind of laziness as a film maker. And yet, every Pixar film is credited with its beautiful and expressive CGI.

I think Avatar just serves to demonstrate that the line between animation and live action is blurring all the time and that, more and more, we're seeing a combination of live and synthetic actors.

I'm not sure who it was (might have been Speilberg), but I do remember hearing a director talk about creating a CGI "actor" who could be used in multiple films. This actor would presumably be voiced by the same person, but could be used to play different roles in films.

As much as I think there are problems with that idea, I also find it interesting to see just how integral animation has become. You could almost call Avatar an "animation" - and that certainly wouldn't be a criticism.[/font]

[Gavin]

[LEFT][SIZE=1]I do find that idea that Avatar had "too much CGI" a bit odd as well. While I wasn't a fan of the movie, it was conceived to effectively push Hollywood's CGI capabilities as far as they could go (and beyond) so having too much really doesn't factor into the equation there.

Avatar should certainly be lauded for its achievements with CGI and animation, something which as you said has been Pixar's niche for quite a long and all the wonderful things they've done with it. (I happened to catch a Pixar documentary on TV about two weeks ago at 5 am, fascinating programme)
[/SIZE][/LEFT]

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]
What I find most interesting is that James Cameron's use of CGI in Avatar is characterized by some as betraying a kind of laziness as a film maker. And yet, every Pixar film is credited with its beautiful and expressive CGI.

I think Avatar just serves to demonstrate that the line between animation and live action is blurring all the time and that, more and more, we're seeing a combination of live and synthetic actors.

I'm not sure who it was (might have been Speilberg), but I do remember hearing a director talk about creating a CGI "actor" who could be used in multiple films. This actor would presumably be voiced by the same person, but could be used to play different roles in films.

As much as I think there are problems with that idea, I also find it interesting to see just how integral animation has become. You could almost call Avatar an "animation" - and that certainly wouldn't be a criticism.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] This has undergone some criticism in the animation world, mostly because a couple of years back motion-sensor animation (like Gollumn, but that was the créme de la créme of motion sensor and cheap motion sensor was bad) was looked down upon. Comparing motion sensor animation to the kind of animation Pixar does was at that time a kind of insult-- understandable, considering the animators behind any well-done character animation are in a way "acting" themselves, only through years of honing their talent.

So to compare a program (if anything, let's applaud the people who engineered/created the program) that tracks human movements and animates them to people who pour thousands of hours into traditional/CG animation... yeah, I'm still iffy on that.

[/font]

[James]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]

So to compare a program (if anything, let's applaud the people who engineered/created the program) that tracks human movements and animates them to people who pour thousands of hours into traditional/CG animation... yeah, I'm still iffy on that.

[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'd say similar levels of artistry are required for both. The movement tracking software doesn't design or create the characters themselves - it simply tracks human movement. As far as I know, it can't track extremely subtle movement very well yet (including facial expressions, for example).

So an enormous amount of detailed animation had to be performed on those characters in order to achieve their realistic behaviour and "look".

You'll also find that the "traditional" CG animation in Pixar's films also uses a number of semi-automated elements. Animating water, for example, isn't done by hand - it's done by developing complex simulation software.

So both Avatar and its Pixar counterparts are on a pretty level playing field I'd say, except for the fact that Avatar's animation technology is significantly more advanced (trying to animate photo-realistic beings and environments and composite them with live action actors is always a more difficult task than generating a more comical/whimsical world without any live action elements).[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'd say similar levels of artistry are required for both. The movement tracking software doesn't design or create the characters themselves - it simply tracks human movement. As far as I know, it can't track extremely subtle movement very well yet (including facial expressions, for example).

So an enormous amount of detailed animation had to be performed on those characters in order to achieve their realistic behaviour and "look".

You'll also find that the "traditional" CG animation in Pixar's films also uses a number of semi-automated elements. Animating water, for example, isn't done by hand - it's done by developing complex simulation software.

So both Avatar and its Pixar counterparts are on a pretty level playing field I'd say, except for the fact that Avatar's animation technology is significantly more advanced (trying to animate photo-realistic beings and environments and composite them with live action actors is always a more difficult task than generating a more comical/whimsical world without any live action elements).[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] I was strictly talking about character animation, which, I can imagine, is the hardest to capture well. I agree that artistry is involved in both processes, but they're not the same. As for as my knowledge goes, tracking animation places sensors on the face to mimic movements, so the basic character animation is there. There's a huge difference between creating a CGI look for already existing movements, and creating both the character and his/her expressions.

I think people too easily jumble up technical animation and character animation. On terms of CGI background and such, yes, I think Pixar and the workers on Avatar are on level playing fields. But in terms of character animation, no. [/font]

[rotlung]

well like it or not I'm sure we'll see plenty of films like Avatar in the future. Hollywood is all about $$$$$ and Avatar will most likely break all the records that Titanic set. (i think the only one it hasn't offically broken was Domestic Gross of a movie)

edit ok now it's offical

[URL]http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.accesshollywood.com/avatar-officially-overtakes-titanic-global-box-office-record-with-185-billion[/URL]

[James]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] I was strictly talking about character animation, which, I can imagine, is the hardest to capture well. I agree that artistry is involved in both processes, but they're not the same. As for as my knowledge goes, tracking animation places sensors on the face to mimic movements, so the basic character animation is there. There's a huge difference between creating a CGI look for already existing movements, and creating both the character and his/her expressions.
[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]You're right that they put sensors on the face as well, but I don't think it's simply a case of creating a model and then having software animate it completely based on motion capture.

I mean, it's very possible that the tech has evolved so much recently that this is the case - so you could very well be totally right with that.

But my understanding of motion capture is that it's still a fairly basic tool. The animation team still has to do a lot of manual work to achieve a lifelike effect. I would say that the techniques are [i]different[/i], but I'm not sure that one is inherently more artistic than another.

Also with Pixar's animation, there is an increasing amount of automation involved like I mentioned earlier. For instance, things like fur and hair aren't manually animated anymore - they're animated via the creation of specialised physics code.

Of course, it still can take months to engineer a set of code for a particular character and their particular materials (from memory, it took a long time for them to create the routines that would animate Sully's fur in Monsters Inc.)

Either way, I think some people almost equate Avatar's animation to something like pushing a button that says "Go". And that, obviously, doesn't reflect the enormous work that goes into any kind of great CGI.[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]You're right that they put sensors on the face as well, but I don't think it's simply a case of creating a model and then having software animate it completely based on motion capture.

I mean, it's very possible that the tech has evolved so much recently that this is the case - so you could very well be totally right with that.

But my understanding of motion capture is that it's still a fairly basic tool. The animation team still has to do a lot of manual work to achieve a lifelike effect. I would say that the techniques are [i]different[/i], but I'm not sure that one is inherently more artistic than another.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] I'm not 100% sure, so who knows? I'll leave it at that, since I don't really have a greater knowledge of the subject. [/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Also with Pixar's animation, there is an increasing amount of automation involved like I mentioned earlier. For instance, things like fur and hair aren't manually animated anymore - they're animated via the creation of specialised physics code.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] As I said, I agree about the technical animation (background, clothes, fur, lighting, etc.), but that's still different from character animation (body movements, facial expressions, etc.), my main point of focus.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Of course, it still can take months to engineer a set of code for a particular character and their particular materials (from memory, it took a long time for them to create the routines that would animate Sully's fur in Monsters Inc.)

Either way, I think some people almost equate Avatar's animation to something like pushing a button that says "Go". And that, obviously, doesn't reflect the enormous work that goes into any kind of great CGI.[/font][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] This I absolutely agree with. The CGI of the caliber shown in Avatar isn't a cop-out, it takes years and years along with animators, illustrators, engineers, and who knows what else. I don't doubt that Avatar was a result of tremendous labor and talent.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Well, just saw it.

You know what would be nice? If someone in Hollywood could make a movie with a pro-environment moral that doesn't spend an entire scene printing the words HUMANS ARE BASTARDS across the screen in six foot tall neon green flashing letters.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I can remain optimistic, can't I?[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Well, just saw it.

You know what would be nice? If someone in Hollywood could make a movie with a pro-environment moral that doesn't spend an entire scene printing the words HUMANS ARE BASTARDS across the screen in six foot tall neon green flashing letters.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I can remain optimistic, can't I?[/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Nope, sorry.[/SIZE]

[James]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Well, just saw it.

You know what would be nice? If someone in Hollywood could make a movie with a pro-environment moral that doesn't spend an entire scene printing the words HUMANS ARE BASTARDS across the screen in six foot tall neon green flashing letters.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I can remain optimistic, can't I?[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]But humans [i]are[/i] bastards, aren't they? :confused:[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Indeed they are. In fact, they're bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling. I just wish someone would learn to at least be subtle when wasting my 8 bucks to tell me I suck.

It doesn't help that three months prior to the whole THEY KILLED THEIR MOTHER scene, Sully himself was completely on board with the "make the blue monkeys relocate or nuke 'em off the surface" plan and was effectively a spy, which pretty much makes him the King Kahuna bastard. heck, he wasn't completely on the Na'vi's side until the night before the bulldozers arrived, so I guess Quaritch had a point about him switching allegiance for alien tail.

But I digress, I can see from the rest of the thread that poking holes in the story here is ultimately pointless, since you'll either facepalm at everything or ignore the plot to enjoy the Jungle of Sweet Rave Parties anyway. And yeah, it was all very pretty indeed. It just lacked substance of any kind. I guess it's kind of like the stereotypical blonde cheerleader of movies.[/FONT]

[James]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]
But I digress, I can see from the rest of the thread that poking holes in the story here is ultimately pointless, since you'll either facepalm at everything or ignore the plot to enjoy the Jungle of Sweet Rave Parties anyway. And yeah, it was all very pretty indeed. It just lacked substance of any kind. I guess it's kind of like the stereotypical blonde cheerleader of movies.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The thing is, I don't think anyone even really denies that the plot was, well...pretty devoid of any substance whatsoever. The only real disagreement is whether or not a simplistic plot equates to a terrible movie overall. Opinions seem to differ a lot on that point.

As far as the whole humans are evil thing, I agree with you. I also think the portrayal of the military was laughably simplistic and predictable - but again, this [i]is[/i] James Cameron's Fern Gully.

If you take the movie seriously, I think one of the big questions is why humans are still so ignorant and basically xenophobic in the distant future (when you'd think we would have learned a great deal about these things over time). Then again, I suppose the message is that mankind can never escape the mark of our lowly origins (paraphrasing Darwin, since I don't remember exactly what he said).[/font]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT=Comic Sans MS]Well, just saw it.

You know what would be nice? If someone in Hollywood could make a movie with a pro-environment moral that doesn't spend an entire scene printing the words HUMANS ARE BASTARDS across the screen in six foot tall neon green flashing letters.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I can remain optimistic, can't I?[/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE=1]I know I said no before but [B]Wall-E[/B] actually has quite a nice environmental moral at the end which doesn't come across as forced, nor does it invoke the "Humans Are Bastards" trope.[/SIZE]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Gavin'][SIZE=1]I know I said no before but [B]Wall-E[/B] actually has quite a nice environmental moral at the end which doesn't come across as forced, nor does it invoke the "Humans Are Bastards" trope.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Which is why it's still tied with [I]UP[/I] for my favorite Pixar movie ever.

Then again, Pixar is notoriously good at formulating a good story to go with their impressive visuals. I can understand why the former fell to the wayside here, but I have to say my enjoyment of the movie suffered as a result. It's hard to enjoy the scenery when you're too busy banging your head against the wall at the trained Ex-Marine bodyguard who just wandered into the alien jungle so he could [I]poke things.[/I][/FONT]

[Sara]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Which is why it's still tied with [I]UP[/I] for my favorite Pixar movie ever.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE][size=3][font=secret font!]I think [i]Wall-E[/i] probably edges out [i]Up[/i]. The opening was wonderful, but led me to expect a much more serious movie. I felt a little let down by some of the silliness that ensued.[/font][/size]

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms] Ah, backlash. It's a wonderful thing.[/font]

[John]

[quote name='Lunox'][FONT=trebuchet ms] Ah, backlash. It's a wonderful thing.[/FONT][/quote] I guess I'll try to be more impressed by the same stuff other people are impressed by from now on...

[Sara]

[quote name='John']I guess I'll try to be more impressed by the same stuff other people are impressed by from now on...[/QUOTE][font=secret font!][size=3]You probably hated Beanie Babies, too, didn't you? :rolleyes:[/size][/font]

[John]

[quote name='Sara'][FONT=secret font!][SIZE=3]You probably hated Beanie Babies, too, didn't you? :rolleyes:[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote] I liked Beanie Babies as a kid, I don't hate [I]Avatar[/I], and I'm sure you know what I actually meant in that post.