Dunno yet. It’s up to azoore. I tried pitching Avatar: Legend of Korra, but without too much success.
Day 3 of 30-Day Otaku Challenge
Post(s) tagged with "Avatar"
I thought I’d kick off this tumblr thread with a little behind-the-scenes glimpse of the Korra production. This was yesterday’s color correction session (one of my favorite parts of the process) with Randy at Level 3.
Bryan Konietzko has a tumblr, teasing Avatar: Legend of Korra.
Holy shit. I tried not to, but I logged onto tumblr from work to post about this. This morning, they announced a follow up series to Avatar: The Last Airbender which is currently under the working title of Avatar: the Legend of Korra.
The Legend of Korra takes place 70 years after the events of Avatar: The Last Airbender and follows the adventures of the Avatar after Aang – a passionate, rebellious, and fearless teenaged girl from the Southern Water Tribe named Korra.
Click the photo for the press release article. I’m so spazzticly excited about this. Can’t wait for 2011.
Movie Trailer of the Day: Second full-length trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s live-action adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender, featuring several never-before-seen clips.
The film, which stars the whitest kids M. Night Shyamalan knows, opens in theaters July 2.
DailyWhat’s blurb made me laugh.
Basically, my own take on a link I posted earlier here.
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past month and a half or so, Avatar has come out. And recently, it has become the most successful film of all time, bringing in close to $1.9 BILLION. That’s and insane amount of money.
The main thing, though is that there has been debate about whether or not Avatar constitutes an animated movie or live action with heavy visual effects. James Cameron has made his position clear: Avatar is not animated. He believes that because actors did not just recite lines, that the actors had to actually act on screen, that it makes Avatar live-action. And I’m not saying he’s wrong. By all means, he made the movie so his opinion definitely counts. But I don’t agree with him. I believe that it could and probably will be classified as an animated movie. The visual effects could be argued as animated scenes. And if you look at the behind the scenes clips all over the internet, it’s obvious that the performances were done on an open sound stage.
I had a very heated debate with a good friend of mine a week ago about this, him arguing for VFX and me for animation. And I got a good idea of what each side thinks.
Visual effects proponents argue that because the overall emotion and performance of the actors were taken, it’s a live action movie. The bare performance was just enhanced by the overlay of skin and background. The amount of detail taken from the actors as reference to render the movie breaks beyond what would be acceptable for animation. And, because an animator isn’t interpreting the dialogue and providing their own actions, but must conform to the actions taken by the actors, there’s no freedom for expression on the animator’s part, if there was an animator and not a computer automatically generating these characters. (Let me know if I left anything out.)
Animation people, on the other hand, are convinced that the visual overlay and effects rendered make it much more than a live action movie. The Na’avi and the backgrounds were rendered by computers, but someone had to be there to make sure the output of each computer was correct and calibrated to fit the director’s needs. Avatar was made to be more realistic than cartoony and fantastical, so it would make sense that more reference points were taken and even that the exact movements of the actors taken as actions of their characters. The amount of things on costumes, on body, on creatures that needed to be imagined up make it more animation than live action. Also, the idea that this method of motion capture was used predominantly throughout the movie biases most into thinking it as a live action. In truth, this could be used as a resource for games, for other movies, or pretty much anything CGI related for only one scene or less.
Overall, I think that there’s only the one example to nitpick over and analyze and so, no definitive conclusions can be reached. There needs to be more examples of the technology in many different genres and platforms for this technology to be called animation or visual effects. All this movie does at this point in time is blur the line between these two genres of film making.
Let me know which you think. Is Avatar animated or live-action?
Full article and video found here: Cartoon Brew.
Basically, the whole video can be boiled down to Avatar was not an animated film because James Cameron says so. James Cameron can convince himself all he wants but that doesn’t make it true. He says because the actors didn’t stand on a sound stage and just record lines makes it not animation. Not true.
The way I define animation is someone had to go in and create these characters from scratch and make them do what the director wanted them to do. Visual effects is doing sometimes major touch up to background, to characters, to anything in the frame, but that’s all visual effects are: touch-ups. Enhancing what’s there already. Animating something takes time to create with minimal cues what characters look like, what the environment is, how to go from one movement to the other. Sure the actors had to actually act. But their performance wasn’t meant to be what was shown on the big screen. It was used as a basis to create what was going to be shown in theaters. And that makes it animation in my mind.
A kid from San Francisco who enjoys the hipster culture, nerdfighting, animation and cartoons, art, hometowns, martial arts, the ironic and hilarious, music, and photography.