James Cameron's Avatar vs. Unreal

[linflas]

My first impression when i discovered Avatar's movie artworks and then trailers was the similarities with Unreal, the first game of the famous FPS series. I started to search for people having the same feeling about Avatar and here's what i've just found on Mobygames. Some guy has done a few more investigation...

Pasted from http://www.mobygames.com/game/unreal/trivia

Contributed by Rúben Alvim (1) on 18.07.2004.

One of director James Cameron's pet projects after Titanic was an epic sci-fi extravaganza called Avatar, much hyped in Hollywood circles at the time and poised to redefine the notion of a truly alien world on the big screen.

The project fell apart some years ago, but the scriptment (a hybrid between a script and a treatment ) by James Cameron still exists. Interestingly, you can find quite a few similarities between it and Unreal:


Both feature a basic plot premise where, by virtue of circumstances mostly beyond his control, a reluctant hero becomes the saviour of the native race of an alien planet forced to mine their land for ore of utmost importance to an invading race coming from the skies. In both cases the saviour is seen by the natives as someone who also came from the skies and is thus initially met with some alarm or distrust only to be later hailed as a pseudo-messiah.


The native race is called "Na'vi" in Avatar and "Nali" in Unreal. The physical description of the Na'vi by Cameron can be visualised as basically a cross between the Nalis' tall, lean, slender bodies and the IceSkaarjs' blueish skin colour patterns, facial features, ponytail-like dreadlocks and caudal appendages.


The Nali in Unreal worship goddess Vandora. The home planet of the Na'vi in Avatar (which the Na'vi worship as a goddess entity) is named Pandora.


In Avatar, one of the most dazzling alien settings described is a huge set of sky mountains, "like floating islands among the clouds". One of the most memorable vistas in Unreal is Na Pali, thousands of miles up in the cloudy sky amidst a host of floating mountains. The main sky mountain range in Avatar is called "Hallelujah Mountains". The main Unreal level set in Na Pali is called "Na Pali Haven". Both include beautiful visual references to waterfalls streaming down the cliffs and dissolving into the clouds below.


The Earth ship in Avatar is called "ISV-Prometheus". One of the levels in Unreal takes place in the wreck of a Terran ship called "ISV-Kran". Even more striking, in the expansion pack Return to Na Pali, the crashed ship the player is asked to salvage is called "Prometheus".


One of the deadly examples of local fauna in Unreal is the Manta, essentially a flying manta-ray. In Avatar, one of the most lethal aerial creatures is the Bansheeray, basically a flying manta-ray. The expansion Return to Na Pali even features a Giant Manta, while in Avatar one of the most formidable predators is a giant Bansheeray, which Cameron dubbed "Great Leonopteryx".


In the two stories (especially Return to Na Pali, on Unreal's end), a plot point arises from the fact the precious ore behind the invasion of the planet ("tarydium" in Unreal, "unobtanium" in Avatar) causes problems in the scanners.


Unreal was in development for several years before its release in 1998. The Avatar scriptment was probably finished as early as 1996-97. Bearing all the above in mind the temptation to start wondering about further suspicious parallels may be quite strong, but in spite of these similarities both titles have few else in common and many aspects actually veer off in wildly different directions. Even so, the coinciding factors can make for an interesting minutia comparison.

[Gambit37]

I always loved the original Unreal. I haven't seen Avatar. I live in hope that it's Unreal on the big screen, but from what I've seen, I seriously doubt it.

Good comparisons though, nice find. LOL at "unobtanium"

[cowsmanaut]

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/0120 ... avatar.jpg
that's one more source of his "inspiration".. they also mention a number of things taken from dune.

we also have an album cover to "YES" who employed the same artist who did the "Shadow of the beast" box art. Which shows a landscape exactly like where the spirit tree lives

we have a number of visual sources for flying cities as well.

the whole movie, while good, didn't have a creative or original bone in it's proverbial body

[Gambit37]

Are you saying that something isn't worthwhile if it's not wholly original?

[beowuuf]

Star Wars (episode IV) should be burned in that case!

[Gambit37]

Exactly. Most stories owe a debt to something that has gone before and very little modern entertainment is truly original. So what?

Some of the most popular works of fiction are "inspired" by other works, and some of the more original works have been remade again and again in different ways and remain popular and entertaining. Alice in Wonderland for example.

Or let's take the example of the passage posted above, about Disney's Pocahontas. That was a fictionalised version of an alleged romance between her and John Smith. But it has its roots in a true story. There have been several versions and there will probably be more. The only original story is the truth of what happened between her and John Smith. Someone else will come out with a new take on it, or maybe write a version that's more truth than fiction and we will still consume it.

I think there's terrible snobbery over the value of originality. Originality is clearly a driving goal in most individual artistic creative expression and it's wonderful to create something truly original that engages people on an emotional level. But a story that's inspired by something else -- if written well with good characters, prose, pace and passion -- is still a good story. And if you're a younger person, who is unaware of the inspirations behind a new film or book, you will hopefully still be touched and moved by it in some way. Job done, and by a "copy" no less!

Our yearning for good human stories is innate and part of our collective conscious; it really doesn't matter if we've heard some variation of them before.

[cowsmanaut]

ok, let's put it straight. You can be inspired by other stories and events. Draw some similarities. However, it should not read action for action as another movie. As for Disney's pochahontas .. This film was based on a true story and didn't try to hide that fact. What it tried to hide was the original story you know.. the one where she's left to die in the streets of london after being taken from her tribe...? ahem.. anyway. the critique is that he is not telling us it's Pocahontas in space.. he's saying it's totally original.. something you've never seen before... doing things people have never done before.. and yet, all of it.. ALL OF IT.. is BULL. Even down to the Tech he's using to capture the movie.. his little mock camera to shoot the scenes with? Peter Jackson was doing that on the first lord of the rings!! Their motion capture of actors together.. also not the first time, and in fact was just beaten out by uncharted 2.. but others had done it before them. Sure, it's not done all the time.. it's not the "standard" but it's also not NEW.

They took their concepts directly from the artwork of others and then had a bunch of new artists "redraw" them to make it look like theirs. Then you get into the problems with this fantasy world and trying to tie it to some semblance of plausability and you can't.. USB animals, floating rocks which still have gravity, etc.

What I will say is it's the prettiest, and most entertaining bit of bull I've ever seen. I will watch it again, and it will end up in my movie collection. However, I would like Mr. Cameron to shut his pie hole or admit to what it is..

[Gambit37]

The LOTR virtual camera system was nothing like what was used on Avatar, it was much less sophisticated. The LOTR setup allowed for simple overlay mapping of the 3D world onto a virtual view of either (a) rendered performance, (b) previously shot footage or (c) mocap translated to simple wireframe representations. But not all three at the same time.

Avatar's system allows for LIVE performance capture being recorded LIVE onset to be be translated to a virtual camera which shows the 3D avatars taking on the performance of the capture, all LIVE. This has never been done like this before. When you add in the high fidelity facial capture system, which has also never been done before, I don't really see how you can say this is the same as what Weta were doing ten years ago.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=3
http://www.frankrose.com/_i_avatar__i__ ... _90257.htm

Strung across the ceiling are infrared cameras that register the actors’ movements from markers on their bodies; the same cameras pick up the motion of his screen from markers on its frame. Holding it in his hands and pointing it toward his two stars, Sam Worthington (from Terminator Salvation) and Zoe Saldana (Uhura in J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek reboot), he can tilt and pan as if it were an actual camera.

This in itself is surprising enough—but what’s really remarkable is what he sees on the screen. Not Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, standing a few feet away in their body-hugging black mocap suits; not the hollow gray risers on the soundstage; not the overarching blackness all around us. What the screen displays is the blue, catlike, ten-foot-tall avatar of Worthington’s character, Jake Sully, standing next to Saldana’s equally blue, catlike alien in the deep jungle of the rainforest planet Pandora, where most of this movie takes place. Not reality but virtual reality, in real time.

Technology builds on previous technology. Naturally some of the mocap and virtual camera work on Avatar improves on LOTR because it was the same effects house responsible: Weta.

This was the first CG film I have seen where I never once questioned the validity of what I was seeing and as a result I was completely immersed in it. I think thta's pretty damned impressive. Perhaps you're unable to stop looking critically at the production of the film and simply enjoy it for what it is? Maybe this is simply another sign of our cynical, post-modern de-constructive jaded western psyche that seems to pervade everything these days.

As for the story being original, I won't defend that because clearly it isn't. And Jim is no stranger to being "inspired" by other people's work (google for Terminator/Harlan Ellison). I say again, so what? As long as it's not outright plaigiarism, where's the problem? And so what if some of it's implausible? So what if there are floating rocks AND gravity? Pfft, honestly, who gives a shit -- just enjoy the movie.

[beowuuf]

Actually, if it is the critical eye, then it's nothing to do with jaded it's to do wit hthe training of our minds. I seem to recall Ron Moore's wife saying it was annoying watching TV with him, because he found it hard to switch off his usual tv producer's mind when watching shows, speaking about them in those terms.

[Gambit37]

It's kind of the same point though isn't it? How hard can it be to put aside ones critical or jaded eye and just, you know, enjoy stuff? Have we all lost our inner child?

Last week I went to see War Horse. It was absolutely enchanting and amazing, yet when you look at the premise, it sounds ridiculous and impossible to believe that you could get emotionally drawn into it when the puppeteers are right there on stage. But you know what? After a while you simply ignore them and focus on the performance of the horse -- and that was simply stunning and totally believeable.

I hope that more people will be able to shed their trained, jaded, post-modern, whatever views and return to a more imaginative state of mind when experiencing these things: they are far more enjoyable as a result.

[beowuuf]

Of course, you could argue that enough people disconnect their brain and enjoy a film or tv show, no matter how mindless, that we have such crap blockbusters and many of the crap shows we get!

[Gambit37]

There's a big difference between the innate mindlessness of the great unwashed, and those who wilfully choose to disconnect their faculties to enjoy some popular entertainment.

[cowsmanaut]

it's very difficult to stop ones brain from doing what it does all day. Did I enjoy the "ride" sure.. but tell me.. if you watch someone pick their bum, and then proceed to mix your salad with their hands.. would you just shut off your brain and go ahead and eat it? I mean you probably won't taste it with all the salad dressing right? and there couldn't have been very much on their finger.. so why not just ignore that? not so easy right? Do you shut off your brain when surfing the net? I seem to remember you many times poking at web related things I was doing for just the purpose of entertainment. Your brain was obviously not off then

We can't just shut things off.. when I watch a 3D film I see how it was made.. I catch errors most people miss. I also gain enjoyment from something that may totally simple and uninteresting to the rest of the audience, like how a digital characters fingers react and bend when touching a book... because I know how much time and work it takes for that to happen.. So really sometimes I'm enjoying the film more than others.

I own a variety of crappy films that should have never been made, but have fantastic CG in them. I keep track of a lot of the things they do in their process. Live facial tracking and motion capture have been around a very long time. The system used on LOTR was not 100% the same, sure.. but that has more to do with the way in which they did the FX really. They had a lot of real actors that had to be worked into that 3D space, and miniature elements. The concept as a whole is the same though. A camera into a virtual world. Ie, it's not a new idea. and it's not something no one has ever done before so much as it's a new way of doing something they've been doing for a while. In fact if you understand how motion capture actually works, you would realize how little effort it is to do what it is they are doing. Making a capture of the cameras movements. In fact since motion capture has been invented, it was always possible to do... To be frank, I think I like much better the way they did the FX for LOTR than for Avatar.. I love the perfect marriage of practial and digital elements. It was what put Weta on the map, and allowed them to push ILM off their lofty seat as the best FX house in just 1 year of existence as a Digital company!! can you imagine? Starting a new company in essence and knocking down the people who have been the best for years??

anyway, if you really want to see impressive..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTisU4di ... re=related

and this was posted 2008! Full capture of EVERYTHING including the clothes not just a few facial features. I'm unable to find it right now, but saw another video of this same type from 2006 siggraph showing realtime facial capture of the same type.. The reality is image Metrics have been doing this kind of real time facial capture for games and film since around 2007 including naughty dog who released the exact kind of work you've seen in avatar at the mid production point for the 2009 GDC.

let's just put it this way, if I throw a pickle on a sandwich.. it doesn't make it a new invention.. it makes it just a sandwich with a pickle on it.

[Gambit37]

We can't just shut things off.. when I watch a 3D film I see how it was made.. I catch errors most people miss. I also gain enjoyment from something that may totally simple and uninteresting to the rest of the audience, like how a digital characters fingers react and bend when touching a book... because I know how much time and work it takes for that to happen.. So really sometimes I'm enjoying the film more than others.

I emboldened the part that I feel sums up the issues: you're looking for the mistakes. As a result, it seems like you're unable to simply enjoy a film for what it is when you're looking out for the flaws. Would you rather feel clever coming out of a movie because you spotted some FX error, or would you rather feel connected, charged, inspired, elated, moved because you were engaged in the story and the experience?

I suspect you would not have been able to enjoy War Horse, that I mentioned above, because you would have been focussing on exactly how the puppets were being operated. (This is not a criticism of your character by the way, it's simply my observation about how you've said you see things! Want to make sure you understand this isn't a personal attack; I'm genuinely interested in this issue. Hard to do when not face to face!)

The point is, we can shut things off. I too can be critical of the things you mentioned, but I don't let it get in the way of enjoying a film. These days, one should only notice FX when it's done wrong. (Die Another Day, for example!) As for films made 30 years ago -- they have plenty of dodgy FX in them, but they still work as fantastic movies because all the other stuff is spot on: character, atmosphere, dialogue, cinematography, mood, presence, lighting, etc etc etc -- and it's that stuff that pulls you into the story and makes it the immersive experience that you went to see in the first place. ET for example, has some really ropey FX work, but it still makes me cry because it's such an emotionally charged story.

As for the originality thing, the original point of the discussion: I've already said my bit there, so I guess we have to agree to disagree And regarding the technology, I really don't care who was first; I only countered your point on that because some of what you implied was ambiguous. The point about any technology used in cinema is how you use it to enhance the story and the experience. Otherwise, it's just technological masturbation and we may as well be having the Mac vs. PC argument: again, I don't care about that: they are just tools and people should use the tools that are most appropriate and work best for them.

BTW, you do choose some funny analogies! Bummy fingers in a salad?!

[beowuuf]

And rather than say 'why get exciting about putting a pickle in a hamburger', aren't we speaking 'people already made buns, people already cooked meat, who cares someone put some cooked meat in a bun and made a hamburger?

[cowsmanaut]

No, it's not the same level as a hamburger. In fact I'm not even sure it's a pickle... the amount of of effort it took to give him that kind of control and making it "new" was like the invention of putting a tooth pick in your sandwich to keep it together. Is it useful? yes.. did both things exist before.. certainly. was it always possible.. yes.

All it took was for one person to complain about the sandwich. In this case that person was peter jackson. He wanted to get in there and shoot, keep the camera dirty and was not happy with their keyframed camera.. he wasn't in control and he likes to be in control. So all he had to do was ask, can I control the camera? Now what did James ask? "Hey that thing that peter jackson did, can I do that too and can you just throw in some facial capture too, you know like they were doing at that game developers confrence this year.. " and then said.. "look.. I've made something new.." and not only that, he started going on about how you don't need animators anymore.. forgetting that all of his animals and ships and most of the robots, and many background characters were all keyframe animated..

I just really have a BIG problem with people boasting about something they have no right to. For the matrix they did the same thing, The brag about bullet time, however if you take a quick look, people have been doing this since the days of black and white photography.. placing cameras at different lengths and taking pictures. In fact the Gap had a series of commercials released before they made the movies and yet sat there and bold face lied that it was new.. Trying to be self important, trying to earn themselves awards for nothing.

that's what bugs me.. and it bugs me even more, when they devalue the work of people like myself and my students as if we're not needed, like James there did.

[cowsmanaut]

but I should add to that, I really did enjoy watching the movie, and as I said it'll end up in my collection. The direction, acting, and CG were all great.. it's just that bit about bragging when they have no right that set me off

[Gambit37]

What a load of rubbish! Jim Cameron has not devalued your work, and he certainly has not claimed you don't need animators anymore. A huge chunk of Avatar is still keyframe animated and he's fully aware of it. You're just throwing out mentions of things he's said without any context.

Anyway, wthout people like Cameron, Lucas, Jackson et al who demand to push the state of the art for the sake of their vision, you wouldn't even be doing the work you do in 3d animation anyway! You're standing on the shoulders of giants, so I'm not sure why you're so pissed with one of the guys who's helped influence how this technology has been developed? And to the point where us mere mortals can now do it on our own desktops! Thus giving you a new creative outlet and a job! Pretty ironic.

Jim Cameron has a big mouth. This is not news. No one in the industry believes his claims about the stuff he supposedly "personally invented" and they do not take those claims seriously. The people with the biggest mouths will be the ones to take the credit; that has always been true and will always be true. It might not be fair, but it's simply what happens. If one doesn't like it, then one either needs to (a) also get a big mouth and shout louder than anyone else or (b) realise it doesn't matter and simply do your own good work, diligently, to your own standards, and not care about anyone else. That's the mark of a true craftsman.

It's exactly the same in the web industry -- there are are about 30 web "celebrities" who are regularly cited as the best web designers, but there are thousands of us out there who are probably better -- and no-one has ever heard of us. Am I pissed about that? Do I care that Web Celebrity #1 gets all the glory? No; I care about doing good work and delighting my clients. I don't have a big mouth and will never be on a top 20 list of web designers. But I could have been if I'd simply blogged about a few things here and there about ten years ago, like a lot of the now big names did. It's just self promotion at the end of the day, and one must accept that Jim Cameron happens to be very good at it, regardless of how you feel about him personally.

I believe in credit where credit is due, but it should never be the end result of the creative process, or a goal in and of itself -- which seems to the message that you're giving out?

http://twitter.com/joehewitt/status/10313639227

[cowsmanaut]

Oh come on, when you show several clips of the movie including the keyframed animation and you have him saying "every tiny bit of the performance you see on the screen was created by the actors" and later in that clip you have the actors saying "It's not animation" "it's my performance" etc. That does devalue the efforts of the animators on that set of clips. I went hunting for the clip and found a longer version which is mildly better but still makes no real mention of the animators work.. and a newer one where James is now giving some final recognition to the animators... took him long enough. however, what he says is that they are locked down to only being allowed to animate the ears.. (pshh, uh.. hello robots? pterodactyls? etc?)... So likely you've seen the more recent videos, while I was still stuck on their pre-release clip about how it was revolutionary and how it wasn't animation.. but I still have not seen one really recognizing those animators efforts.

Standing on the shoulders of giants huh? I hate that.. they are human beings like the rest of us... and the reality is those giants stand on the talents of others. Without the hundreds of talented artists and musicians he wouldn't have his story told the way he wanted. How often is someone asked to create something that takes them hours for someone else to make millions on. Yet that other person has paid them a few scraps to harvest their knowledge, time, and effort.. without any effort of their own?? That's not to say James there is one of those exactly.. I mean he does know how to package the stuff he steals from others..

As for 3D software being in our homes.. I was using 3D software at my home computer in the early 90's and from what I recall has been available, but still cost prohibitive, since 1986. To purchase one of the highend 3D softwares right now you're looking at around $7000. So, it's not really in everyone's home yet either Zbrush is on the lower end ranging around $500 but doesn't do animation or effects etc. It's only for static digital sculptures.

James Cameron does have a big mouth and I'm sorry, but a large number of producers do take that kind of talk seriously. Especially when his film has gross earnings that blow other films out of the water. When motion capture first became more mainstream, people were making similar statements. It's faster than animators.. I can have a full performance in a day!.. they didn't say "you don't need animators" exactly.. but it was also excluded that you DID still need them. This lead to a number of people with money laying off those animators in favor of paying a few "actors" to jump around in suits and then had the technical dudes push stuff around after so they were facing each other etc. This meant a lof of really ugly work being done for a few years until they got that without animators.. it looked like crap, and that cats and birds are not too fond of having large ping pong balls taped to their bodies. So, sure they figured it out, but for years, their show didn't hire animators.. which meant a slump in the industry. So, forgive me when I get upset about someone not pointing out how much work those animators put in!! We're in a recession here.. there is hardly any work available for 3D artists in BC.. it'll get better.. it usually does.. but we don't need any help to make it worse Keep in mind that many of those people with a lot of money.. have no bloody clue which end of a elephant to feed.

As for you, I am annoyed that a talented designer like yourself is not rewarded in favor of someone who has less talent but a bigger mouth.. I'm someone who thinks hard work and quality should be recognized and that those who sluff off crap with a pretty wrapper should be shown for what they are..

Anyway, I think that people who worked hard to bring about a believable performance from all those animals and robots and background characters, should get at the very least a small mention while he's blabbing on about how he is a god and his "new" motion capture set up is fantastic. I don't expect him to go around and pat them all on the back one at a time, or that he makes it all about them, or that they all need awards.. I just think that recognizing, rather than ignoring, their contribution is warranted .

[Gambit37]

Just randomly found this, thought it was appropriate to add it:
http://blog.moviefone.com/2009/10/26/di ... or-avatar/