CarlieGotfingered Posted:

It’s just as easy to create 3D from something real, if not easier since there is no animation required.

CGI has always been “as real as it can get”, Go watch Star Wars Episode 1, or better yet, the awesome YouTube review of it (and how it sucks) and look at the visuals. Then compare them to the movie you’re yiffing over now (Avatar). Both movies were described in the same way, but came out nearly 10 years apart. In 10 years someone will use Avatar in the same way, to show how CGI has gotten better and that it’s constantly referred to as “as real as it can get” (or something like that, i know those aren’t your words).

Also, take a look at this blast from the past:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/17/watch-this-70-minute-video-review-of-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

I remember when that appeared and people remarked at how lifelike the baby looked.

3D has been around for a long bum time, and it will never be perfected until the brain in hacked and video is inputted directly into the optic nerve replacing what your eyes are seeing. Until then it’s going to be a series of gimmicks that require you too look very special and pay way too much money.

Also: Movie tickets are too damn expensive, i’m not going to pay any extra $6 to see some ****ty movie in 3D.

In conclusion: CGI has nothing to do with it and Avatar is just Smurfs in Space acting out Pocahantas.

P.S. Serious about the Star Wars EP1 review, not only does it show clips from the movie, but the first installment has clips from Terminator and The Original Trilogy that were for thier time examples of realistic special effects and CGI.

Also: I can think of worse ways to waste 70 Minutes.

What exactly is wrong with Star Wars EP1:s CGI? ten years ago they could not pull off everything they tried, but at the best points it is up to par with the more mediocre stuff around today. Same goes, even more so, with stuff like Matrix and the Mummy that were out in 1999. The CGI has not improved in any drastic way in ten years, only thing is that now a movie can have more of everything, and still be affordable.

And, yes, it is easier to create 3D from real stuff, and then it can be considered a gimmick. That is the point of 3D actually breaking through now, since the visual look of movies hasn´t really evolved in ten years, even though practically all limits have been removed. And furthermore on 3D, I live in Finland, north Europe, and we got our first 3D movie theaters about three years ago. I can´t say for a fact, but I´ve gotten the impression that globally actual 3D theaters have just started to pop up recently, no matter how long the technology has been up.

And yes the price of the tickets is horrific. I´m just glad no-one goes to see movies during weekdays around here, and ticket-packages or whatever their called cost around 7$ per ticket in total to see any movie, including 3D.

And about Avatar, it is a story told many times, just now it is told in space, and directed well. You just have to known what kind of a movie your going to see. In Avatar the point is the 3D and the visuals, the story, dialog and whatnot have to be only good enough so they don´t distract from the main point, and they are. Of course, had they been above average, that would have been a plus, but nothing more.

And I enjoy story driven movies as much as the next guy, but it is not the only thing that can make a good movie, at least when watched in the theater.