FANDOM


  • do you think the last airbender would be better if Michael Bay was the director? I think it would be a lot better. the bending would be better and the names will pronounced right. also there will be explosions!! lots and lots of explosions! what do you guys think? I know this movie is old and nobody talks about it anymore. I'm just wondering.

      Loading editor
    • The names were pronounced as they were originally intended before the show... since I doubt M. Bay would have cared I don't think he would have any influence on that so we really don't know. I do think there would be much less influence on the spirituality of the film, and the cast would probably be the same (ask Hasdi if you don't know why). I do wonder if Aang would still be a monk, or if he would just try to stay away from anything religious since that's not really his thing... I would love to see better bending, I personally find it really irritating that so much of the budget was put into special effects and it was still rushed.

        Loading editor
    • the airbending and waterbending was fine in the movie. but the earthbending and firebending was lame.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly think Bay would keep the religious symbols because he probably doesn't want the backlash. We'd probably see a lot more blasting jelly.

        Loading editor
    • oh yeah I bet Jet would have made it into the movie :D

        Loading editor
    • Winterfirstsnow* wrote: oh yeah I bet Jet would have made it into the movie :D

      and the Kyoshi Warriors.

        Loading editor
    • I've been asked to comment here. If Bay is interested, Paramount will give him the project, since they are in a very good business relationship, with the Transformers movie franchise and now TMNT. Bay is very tough to work with on and off the set. M.Night is a pussycat compared to him. The one person worse to work than him is James Cameron himself. If Mike and Bryan were hired executive producers of the movie (instead of merely consultants like TMNT co-creator Kevin Eastman on the TMNT movie), they are going to beg M.Night Shyamalan to come back. Sure, there will be action, but the bending will still be screwed up, unless they get an fight choreographer who watch AND appreciate the shows (which was the problem they had with TLA movie). There will be humor but no spiritual message. IOW, be careful what you wish for.

      Having said all that, TMNT movie is the new flagship title (i.e., The Avengers) for Nickelodeon Movies. The action and tones established in TMNT will carry over to future Nick movies, specifically, how it mixed grounded realism with the action-comedy we have seen in ATLA/Korra. Paramount wasn't comfortable with having similar tones in TLA back then, but now that it is well received in TMNT, it is very likely that TLA sequels / reboots will have similar "look and feel" as TMNT. Later.

        Loading editor
    • ~Boggy B~
      ~Boggy B~ removed this reply because:
      Problem solved, I think.
      16:23, September 6, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • something just occurred to me- if M Bay made the movie do you guys think it would have been a trilogy, or just one movie like A Series of Unfortunate Events? 4 years ago Nick wasn't really into trilogies....

        Loading editor
    • Don't forget Spiderwick Chronicles and Tintin.

        Loading editor
    • oooh I love Tintin! I did laugh a little when people brought toddlers to see it though....

        Loading editor
    • "Better"? Maybe slightly, in the sense that Bay can actually make a watchable action movie. But, as others have pointed out, Bay is likely to fall into the same holes regarding racebending, gender stereotyping, & removing context from the story. He's not really known as a "good" director, just someone who can throw in a bunch of explosions & get people to give him money. I also see him as unlikely to listen to Mike & Bryan, though depending on the writer he had, the themes could be addressed through decent dialogue.

        Loading editor
    • I wonder if the cast would be the same or difference? if bay made the movie the trilogy will be amazing.

        Loading editor
    • Why?

      And didn't it seem strange to you that the waterbending could lose large amounts of water while still retaining its size & shape? Or that Aang practicing inexplicably caused the water to swell AND tendrils to emerge from the water, even though those are 2 completely different moves?

        Loading editor
    • If Michael Bay directed it instead of M.Night? Not much different

      The only difference would be, all water would be replaced with gasoline, so everytime an waterbenders fight, they bend gasoline at the fire nation soldiers who ignite it, causing explosions throughout the entire movie

        Loading editor
    • There would be more explosions.

        Loading editor
    • the fighting would look better.

        Loading editor
    • Teddybearlover wrote: I wonder if the cast would be the same or difference? if bay made the movie the trilogy will be amazing.

      it would be the same. M. Night didn't have much to do with the casting, check out Hasdi's blog. I'm not sure if TLA would be at all interesting to M Bay actually...

        Loading editor
    • might be better

        Loading editor
    • Teddybearlover wrote: the fighting would look better.

      This much is true, I suppose. Though given his reputation, I think he would be highly biased to fire and earth bending, & maybe try to play up the steampunk elements of the series.

        Loading editor
    • Thinklogic wrote: If Michael Bay directed it instead of M.Night? Not much different

      The only difference would be, all water would be replaced with gasoline, so everytime an waterbenders fight, they bend gasoline at the fire nation soldiers who ignite it, causing explosions throughout the entire movie

      true and if a fire bender solder get gasoline all over them they will die or have there skin burn off.

        Loading editor
    • Winterfirstsnow* wrote:

      Teddybearlover wrote: I wonder if the cast would be the same or difference? if bay made the movie the trilogy will be amazing.

      it would be the same. M. Night didn't have much to do with the casting, check out Hasdi's blog. I'm not sure if TLA would be at all interesting to M Bay actually...

      where is Hasdi's blog?

        Loading editor
    • Hasdi is on this thread. Click on his user name. Once you're on his page, there will be tabs for "Message Wall," "Blog," & "Contributions." Pretty sure you can see what to do from there. By the way, if you're looking for a specific person, you can type "User:Person" into the search bar, or search for "Person" &, in the results page, change your search parameters to "People." I could just give you a link, but if you know this, you can find any blog or post on the site.

        Loading editor
    • I wish they made a reboot of this movie. I would love to see that.

        Loading editor
    • ^it would cost too much money, and there's no promise of profit. Actually I think a lot of people wouldn't see it- filmfans out of irritation, some cartoonfans because they just don't like movies based on cartoons, racebending would be against it unless they hired all (east) Asians, and the general public would probably be confused. Shame :/

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote: "Better"? Maybe slightly, in the sense that Bay can actually make a watchable action movie. But, as others have pointed out, Bay is likely to fall into the same holes regarding racebending, gender stereotyping, & removing context from the story. He's not really known as a "good" director, just someone who can throw in a bunch of explosions & get people to give him money. I also see him as unlikely to listen to Mike & Bryan, though depending on the writer he had, the themes could be addressed through decent dialogue.

      Yeah I think that's what would happen if Michael Bay directed a movie adaption of anything from the Avatar Franchise...

      The only positive I could think of is that the fight choreography would probably be better than The Last Airbender (probably... Bay likes explosions. I bet he would be glad to make Combustion Man a main character in the move -____-).

      The Legend of Korra seems to be the best fit for him.

        Loading editor
    • if you want to see explosions. then all the water would be replaced with gasoline. like what Thinklogic said.

        Loading editor
    • I think he'd prefer Legend of Korra, but I don't think it would really be any better, because of the fine line between pragmatism & explosion porn.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      And didn't it seem strange to you that the waterbending could lose large amounts of water while still retaining its size & shape?

      Are you talking about M.Night's movie? The closest to that is Katara's attempt at waterbending in the opening scene but I'd think ILM would pay attention to details like conservation of mass, considering they pioneered simulation of fluid dynamics in movies.[1] Then I realized that you probably forgot to wear your 3D glasses. See, objects look bigger when they are closer to you...

      AtomicPsychology wrote:
      The only positive I could think of is that the fight choreography would probably be better than The Last Airbender.

      Have you seen TMNT movie? Did you notice the Foot fight more like soldiers than ninjas? Shredder wearing an exo-suit? The main gripe Sifu Kisu and Bryan had with TLA movie is not that fight choreography wasn't intense enough but how the bending was executed, if at all. If Bay had the bending the way he THINKS it should be executed, you're going to run into the same problem. It even might make the problem worse.

      What you need, is for the producers to find and hire the fight choreographer who actually watch AND appreciate the fight scenes in ATLA/Korra. Not just someone who worked in the shows because replicating those fight scenes with real people in outdoor settings can turn out deadly.

        Loading editor
    • Then I realized that you probably forgot to wear your 3D glasses. See, objects look bigger when they are closer to you...

      My TV didn't come with 3D glasses, but it doesn't matter anyway, because this would just make the water droplets falling off of the sphere bigger as well. I don't need to speculate on whether or not they would do the water dynamics right, they clearly didn't.

      Edit: That YouTube video was better than all of the fighting/bending in Last Airbender combined.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      I don't need to speculate on whether or not they would do the water dynamics right, they clearly didn't.

      ILM did it correctly. The water sphere became smaller but it was also getting closer towards the screen (hence the viewing audience). Still, ILM could have added more cues for 2D viewers, like Sohka's reflection getting bigger on the sphere.

      That YouTube video was better than all of the fighting/bending in Last Airbender combined.

      Yeah.

        Loading editor
    • Is The Legend of Korra still a viable option for a Paramount Animation movie?

        Loading editor
    • The chances for a Korra movie (and other story Bryke pitched for Paramount Animation) being made is not good. The support from Nick is not strong as before -- many Nick execs who fought for ATLA/Korra has either left, "retired" or fired. Even after discounting the political issues, Paramount Animation is looking in themes similar to Spongebob 2 and Monster Trucks. The sentiment could change depending on how successful this Chinese animated movie does in the United States, but I am not holding my breath.

        Loading editor
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSOzeeoVQOY

      17 seconds in. Clearly moving sideways. But let's just say that there is a tiny amount of forward momentum that's completely impossible to see here. It wouldn't be enough to compensate for how much water that thing is losing, unless you want to tell me that all of the water arbitrarily fell out of the middle.

        Loading editor
    • Winterfirstsnow* wrote: ^it would cost too much money, and there's no promise of profit. Actually I think a lot of people wouldn't see it- filmfans out of irritation, some cartoonfans because they just don't like movies based on cartoons, racebending would be against it unless they hired all (east) Asians, and the general public would probably be confused. Shame :/

      Yeah. Besides, it needs a better script, better actors, and, above all else, a better director. M Night Shamalamadingdong pretty much ruined Avatar for that movie. Plus, many things weren't included, like Suki and the Kyoshu Warriors, Aunt Wu, Omashu, June, Ozai's mysteriousness and hiding in the shadows, the lack of a sequel (though that wasn't really a disappointment), the Rough Rhinos, The Storm flashbacks, the Northern Air Temple, etc etc etc.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      let's just say that there is a tiny amount of forward momentum that's completely impossible to see here. It wouldn't be enough to compensate for how much water that thing is losing, unless you want to tell me that all of the water arbitrarily fell out of the middle.

      Ah, I see the confusion here. What you may see in 2D as a thick stream of water falling out is actually a flat thin stream of water at an angle in 3D. That "thing" wasn't actually losing that much water in that part of the video, but I tell you what: if that is how you perceived it, then that is what it looks like. Paramount still won't pay ILM to render a separate of set of VFX that "makes more sense" in 2D. I will tell you that when ILM does fluid simulation, every drop of water is accounted for. ILM are not the MORONS the haters accuse them to be.

      Waterincup.gif
      Teddybearlover wrote:
      Yeah. Besides, it needs a better script, better actors, and, above all else, a better director. M Night [SNIP!] pretty much ruined Avatar for that movie.

      TBL, you invited me and others to comment here. Don't spit me in the face by needlessly degrading his last name instead of calling him Shyamalan. If Mike and Bryan think M.Night screwed them in the movie, then go ahead and have Michael Bay take over so they know what it really means to be f**ked. I dare you to make Michael Bay interested because Paramount WILL give him the job. Once Bay has set up his mind on how to execute the movie, almost nothing will change his vision, even if it means defying all known laws of physics and have Bryke swallow their pride for the next 10 years. >.<

        Loading editor
    • Once again, movies under similar circumstances do not have this problem. I have an idea, maybe they were cursed by a dark wizard. That sounds about as credible.

        Loading editor
    • What specific circumstances are we talking about? sorry, I'm a little confused by that comment

        Loading editor
    • Winterfirstsnow* wrote: What specific circumstances are we talking about? sorry, I'm a little confused by that comment

      Good question. Hasdi fingers the 2D version as the culprit, saying that it looks fine in 3D. So I suppose the claim here is that the 2D/3D conversion is the source of the problem. Trouble is, Last Airbender was just one of many movies in 2D & hastily converted into 3D.

        Loading editor
    • oh ok, that makes sense. Yeah, I think it's silly how rushed that was... It's a (family) action movie based in a fantasy world, someone early on should have looked at it and realized that it was going to be in 3D.

        Loading editor
    • Just to be clear, VFX shots (done by ILM) can be re-rendered in 3D without too much hassle. The major effort is in post-converting the raw footage (done by StereoD) into 3D. Nicola and the background were post-converted in 3D. The water blob was re-rendered in 3D. Everyone at the time blamed M.Night for converting the movie into 3D, instead of the studio. Clash of the Titans (released in the same as year as TLA movie) was also criticized for poor 3D conversion, and it took 3 years for the Louis Leterrier to admit that the studio put him up to it.[1] Eusa_snooty.gif

      Of course, 3D post-conversion methods are better now so other movies "do not have this problem" anymore. To restore faith in post-conversion, Paramount and Fox worked with the King of the World himself to post-convert Titanic into 3D for April 2012 release, using the SAME COMPANY that "screwed up" The Last Airbender. Ah, the irony...

        Loading editor
    • oh ok, that makes sense. Yeah, I think it's silly how rushed that was... It's a (family) action movie based in a fantasy world, someone early on should have looked at it and realized that it was going to be in 3D.

      To the film's credit, no one had been paying attention to 3D for years. It suddenly saw a resurgence due to Avatar the Last Cat-Person, & I think it should have just remained in the 80's where it belonged.

      Of course, 3D post-conversion methods are better now so other movies "do not have this problem" anymore.

      They never had this problem.

      using the SAME COMPANY that "screwed up" The Last Airbender. Ah, the irony..

      It doesn't matter how good someone's record is, they can still screw up.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Hasdi wrote:
      3D post-conversion methods are better now so other movies "do not have this problem" anymore.
      They never had this problem.

      Not the problems you were aware of, I suppose. James Cameron's Avatar (December 2009) was not post-converted but shot natively in 3D with his Fusion Camera System. Disney's Alice in Wonderland (March 2010) was properly post-converted, but Clash on the Titans (April 2010) was rushed so the results were widely panned by critics. Paramount had StereoD post-convert TLA movie, only three months prior to release in July 2010, after "weighing competitive issues and the potential benefits of higher ticket prices against the $100,000 per running time minute". TLA movie's running time was also cut down to save costs of 3D conversion and distribution.

      James Cameron criticized Hollywood on the post-conversion mania back then, but later compromised on Titanic 3D, in that Paramount and Fox must give StereoD more time to post-convert a movie properly. It didn't take long before studios went back to their old ways of last-minute conversion, e.g., Disney's Need for Speed movie (March 2014) that is also done by StereoD. Hmm... I noticed that StereoD website no longer lists The Last Airbender as one of the projects they had worked on. They must have taken cues from Mike and Bryan: "Oh, we didn't head up the post-conversion... M.Night b-slapped us into submission because that a-hole wanted his name up there... We were involved, but our efforts amounted to nothing." xP

      Anywho, all this is moot because any TLA sequels / reboots WILL be made for 3D, particularly to take advantage of the 14 additional foreign movies quota for 3D/IMAX formats that Obama administration had worked out with China back in 2012. If the visuals look like crap in 2D, then tough s***. During promo tours and interviews, the director WILL join others in whoring 3D versions of their movies on behalf of the studios. If the director's last name is not Shyamalan, critics and fans WILL be humping on the fabulicious 3D experience, even if only 20% of the footage are properly converted or natively shot in 3D. Ain't life grand?

        Loading editor
    • Not the problems you were aware of, I suppose.

      No, I was aware of those problems. 3D conversion has been panned for making the image too dark & messing with the colors, because the way that 3D works is by having glasses with a different light filter in each lens, so that the image will project differently on each eye, thus creating the illusion that you are seeing the same image from 2 different angles, which the brain perceives as depth. But it is often underwhelming, because most depth cues actually only need 1 eye. It doesn't magically grow or shrink the specific parts of the image that need to be grown or shrunk in order to suit your claim.

      If the visuals look like crap in 2D, then tough s***.

      It's actually pretty easy, seeing as I don't watch crappy movies. Well, not by informed decision, anyway.

      If the director's last name is not Shyamalan, critics and fans WILL be humping on the fabulicious 3D experience, even if only 20% of the footage are properly converted or natively shot in 3D.

      You just said that Clash of the Titans was panned for looking like crap.

        Loading editor
    • is anyone still hoping that they will make a The Last Airbender 2? because I don't think they will make a 2rd movie.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      the way that 3D works is by having glasses with a different light filter in each lens, so that the image will project differently on each eye, thus creating the illusion that you are seeing the same image from 2 different angles, which the brain perceives as depth. But it is often underwhelming, because most depth cues actually only need 1 eye. It doesn't magically grow or shrink the specific parts of the image that need to be grown or shrunk in order to suit your claim.

      That is EXACTLY what filmmakers traditionally rely on for most 2D SFX. Remember that hangar scene in the third act of Star Wars: A New Hope? Many of the X-Wings were actually flat cardboard mock-ups. Lacking stereoscopic information, your brain interpret those "2D images" as "3D images". In the case of the water sphere, a 3D image is misinterpreted when presented as a 2D image: your brain perceived it losing a lot of water whenever the water stream goes wide, because it lacks information on its "thickness".

      https://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk6z5y2x9T1qc823io1_500.jpg
      You just said that Clash of the Titans was panned for looking like crap.

      You also said "movies under similar circumstances do not have this problem." Clash of the Titans has this problem so...

      Teddybearlover wrote:
      is anyone still hoping that they will make a The Last Airbender 2? because I don't think they will make a 2rd movie

      Does it matter? Even if no one hopes (or thinks) they will make TLA2, that little detail won't stop Paramount from making the 2nd and 3rd movies back-to-back for 2017 and 2018 summer release.

        Loading editor
    • Eh, I don't see why you're focusing on the 3D conversion so much. Yeah, the hastened 3D-conversion made the film look even worse visually, but that wasn't actually the real issue with the movie. I'd even go so far to say that was the issue that bothered me the least. Bad acting, bad casting, bad pacing, bad storytelling, completely unnecessary changes to the bending (which actually made it look pretty lame sometimes), the different ending (which looked unbelievable, lame and messed up the plot for the supposed sequels)... Can someone tell me what wasn't wrong with this movie? (Well, I guess Appa's live-action equivalent looked okay-ish.)

      The thing with that water sphere losing lots of water isn't a 3D issue, actually. Well, not the 3D you're thinking of, anyway. It's just a matter of volume (3 spatial dimensions) versus length (1 spatial dimension). You can take a lot of 1D lines of water out of that 3D sphere before you'd see a significant difference. The question I'd ask here is: Why did they make the waterbending all splishy-sploshy? It didn't look like they were handling leaky water balloons in the TV show.

      And while I think there's a lot Michael Bay could do wrong with an ATLA movie, we can at least be sure that his bending won't look lame. Just imagine rocks exploding from the Earth, fire exploding into people's faces, water bursting all over the place. Even airbending would look explosive! :D

        Loading editor
    • Teddybearlover
      Teddybearlover removed this reply because:
      sorry
      02:57, September 11, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Teddybearlover wrote:
      is anyone still hoping that they will make a The Last Airbender 2? because I don't think they will make a 2rd movie

      Hasdi: Does it matter? Even if no one hopes (or thinks) they will make TLA2, that little detail won't stop Paramount from making the 2nd and 3rd movies back-to-back for 2017 and 2018 summer release.

      the actors will be adults by the time they film the 2nd and 3rd movies. all of them will be too old to play there characters

        Loading editor
    • Supermensch wrote:
      Can someone tell me what wasn't wrong with this movie?

      The name pronunciation was correct.

      Why did they make the waterbending all splishy-sploshy? It didn't look like they were handling leaky water balloons in the TV show.

      It was just Katara in the beginning, to show that she is not good at waterbending. As she developed better control in the movie, it was less "splishy-sploshy". Remember when Aang saw her waterbending gracefully at the waterfalls in Act II? Me neither. The VFX was dropped in the final cut (but kept in the novelization) because Paramount were cheap bastards. >.<

      Film - Katara waterbending

      Supermensch wrote:
      the actors will be adults by the time they film the 2nd and 3rd movies. all of them will be too old to play there characters

      So we'll have older actors playing kids in the sequels. Sucks doesn't it?

        Loading editor
    • it would be weird seeing adults playing as kids in the sequels. the guy who plays Aang in the 1st movie is now 17 years old. he will be 20/21 when the 2nd and 3rd movies come out.

        Loading editor
    • Teddybearlover wrote:
      it would be weird seeing adults playing as kids in the sequels.

      IKR? Many things are "wrong" already. What's one more?

        Loading editor
    • In the case of the water sphere, a 3D image is misinterpreted when presented as a 2D image: your brain perceived it losing a lot of water whenever the water stream goes wide, because it lacks information on its "thickness".

      No it didn't, that doesn't even make sense.

      You also said "movies under similar circumstances do not have this problem." Clash of the Titans has this problem so...

      You have not named any scene where the image was distorted by the 3D conversion. Like I said, the "problems" that article is referring to are most likely involving brightness & color.

      Eh, I don't see why you're focusing on the 3D conversion so much.

      I just think this is an ad hoc solution to this scene, that we can't see it happening in other movies because it doesn't really happen, but is simply hard to disprove by virtue of the fact that we can't easily compare the 3D & 2D images.

      It was just Katara in the beginning, to show that she is not good at waterbending. As she developed better control in the movie, it was less "splishy-sploshy"

      He's right here. The "master level" waterbending looked okayish, but my issues with this are:

      1. Exaggerated physics to emphasize how crappy their waterbending is. Now, if you look to Korra using waterbending in the opening, it shows a similar idea--her water whip loses water around the edges as a subtle cue that she's sacrificing control for power (though in her case, it's obviously not due to a lack of skill), but it still looks "logical." In the show, someone may fumble a technique, but we usually don't have an issue with the way the water acts.

      2. This is one of those changes that doesn't make sense. Why change Katara to a crappy Waterbender? Is he trying to play up the conflict from the episode "The Waterbending Scroll"? That can't be, because he doesn't even mention it. But if not, then why does Katara's waterbending stay poor for so much longer than the show?

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:

      In the case of the water sphere, a 3D image is misinterpreted when presented as a 2D image: your brain perceived it losing a lot of water whenever the water stream goes wide, because it lacks information on its "thickness".
      No it didn't, that doesn't even make sense.

      nope, it makes sense, this is why I look fatter in pictures -_- (even skinny people look heavier in 2d,it's the same basic concept as the water.

      Neo Bahamut wrote: He's right here. The "master level" waterbending looked okayish, but my issues with this are:

      1. Exaggerated physics to emphasize how crappy their waterbending is. Now, if you look to Korra using waterbending in the opening, it shows a similar idea--her water whip loses water around the edges as a subtle cue that she's sacrificing control for power (though in her case, it's obviously not due to a lack of skill), but it still looks "logical." In the show, someone may fumble a technique, but we usually don't have an issue with the way the water acts.

      2. This is one of those changes that doesn't make sense. Why change Katara to a crappy Waterbender? Is he trying to play up the conflict from the episode "The Waterbending Scroll"? That can't be, because he doesn't even mention it. But if not, then why does Katara's waterbending stay poor for so much longer than the show?

      Because for the vast majority of the movie she was still untrained. And then she had what, a month of classes with Pakku? :/

        Loading editor
    • nope, it makes sense, this is why I look fatter in pictures -_- (even skinny people look heavier in 2d,it's the same basic concept as the water.

      Then if this is such common knowledge, you shouldn't have trouble finding the name of the phenomenon, so I can read up on it myself.

      Because for the vast majority of the movie she was still untrained. And then she had what, a month of classes with Pakku? :/

      For the vast majority of the show, she was untrained, but they still made her competent. Sohka was untrained & he was a way more effective fighter. Ohng was untrained in waterbending & they kept the plot point about him just being naturally skilled.

      Considering that Shyamalan had a lot less time to "get to the point," he probably should have downplayed Katara's incompetence, not exaggerated it. Especially since he removes all of the conflicts related to her learning waterbending.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      nope, it makes sense, this is why I look fatter in pictures -_- (even skinny people look heavier in 2d,it's the same basic concept as the water.
      Then if this is such common knowledge, you shouldn't have trouble finding the name of the phenomenon, so I can read up on it myself.

      It's called an optical illusion. ._______.

      600px-Penrose_Stairs.jpg

      Many 2D SFX methods that mess with your depth perception (including forced perspective) won't work if is presented in 3D, such as the Perose Stairs scene in Inception. Conversely, a 3D image have unintended depth perception when presented in 2D. Should ILM check if the 3D image looks "strange" in 2D? Maybe. But why fix it when the solution is to have viewers pay the 3D surcharge? Icon_mrgreen.gif

      Why change Katara to a crappy Waterbender?

      If she is that good, why bother going to the North Pole? The mind boggles.

        Loading editor
    • It's called an optical illusion. ._______.

      That's not--screw it, I don't have time for this. Sure, everything that looked wrong in this movie was the result of some unspecified optical illusion. And a dark wizard.

      If she is that good, why bother going to the North Pole? The mind boggles.

      As in the show, so Aang can master waterbending, & because "competent"=/=master.

        Loading editor
    • Hasdi wrote:

      Neo Bahamut wrote:
      nope, it makes sense, this is why I look fatter in pictures -_- (even skinny people look heavier in 2d,it's the same basic concept as the water.
      Then if this is such common knowledge, you shouldn't have trouble finding the name of the phenomenon, so I can read up on it myself.
      It's called an optical illusion. ._______.

      Nah, optical illusions work in 3D too.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      As in the show, so Aang can master waterbending, & because "competent"=/=master.

      So you would rather have Katara become competent as soon as she obtained the waterbending scroll? Hmmm... it didn't work so well when Michael Bay had Splinter and turtles become ninja masters from a martial arts book. xP

      Personally, I think they reworked the story around the actors that they cast. Noah and Dev Patel are experienced martial artists, but Nicola and Rathbone only had six months of training. In the show, Mae Whitman only voiced Katara but the martial arts were motion-referenced from Bryan and Kisu. Katara being inexperienced is an unfortunate compromise for the first movie, but it still serves the plot of traveling to the North Pole to master Waterbending.

        Loading editor
    • Supermensch wrote:
      Nah, optical illusions work in 3D too.

      Many optical illusions only work in 2D, including Penrose stairs. An image that look fine in 3D can have unintended depth perception in 2D, e.g., the helicopter is supposed to be look bigger.

      600px-Fairway-Rock-mil-atop.jpg

        Loading editor
    • Hasdi wrote:

      Supermensch wrote:
      Nah, optical illusions work in 3D too.

      Many optical illusions only work in 2D, including Penrose stairs. An image that look fine in 3D can have unintended depth perception in 2D, e.g., the helicopter is supposed to be look bigger.

      600px-Fairway-Rock-mil-atop.jpg

      Well, it wouldn't be an impossible object if you could create it as a 3D object. Those aside, though, if you look at the forced perspective article, you'll notice that many of the examples there are from real-life (which is in 3D! *gasp*). The difference between 2D and 3D would be more not(ic)able if people's eyes were further apart, but with the way our eyes are positioned, human binocular vision can still easily be tricked by forced perspective.

        Loading editor
    • @Neo it is pretty common knowledge that flat 2D images look heavier than 3D, but here's a link if you want it: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2149-tv-makes-men-hunkier-and-women-chunkier.html#.VBLzq5Ug-P8

      If you draw at all, you prob already understand the reason behind it. Depth (in an image of a human) makes people look skinnier. When you take away depth (3D -> 2D) the image looks fatter. You can add depth back with makeup (contouring to make an illusion). It's the same idea with special effects, they weren't made for 2D

        Loading editor
    • Supermensch wrote:
      Well, it wouldn't be an impossible object if you could create it as a 3D object

      That's what I've been saying. ILM used fluid simulation to render every drop of water in that water blob, so it is as real as it gets. When presented in 2D, some parts of that video clip "looked wrong" due to unintended depth perception, despite being rendered correctly in 3D. Heck, it also looked strange to me in 2D so I re-watched that scene again a few times with my Blu-Ray 3D. It is mesmerizing to see the attention to detail. Icon_eek_std.gif

        Loading editor
    • I think the last airbender 2 & 3 won't happened. the first movie came out 4 or 5 years ago. the actors are too old. if they made TLA2 & 3 both movies would probably be out on dvd by now or they would be filming the movies. to ppl who think or hope they will make TLA2 & 3. there movies will never happened!!

        Loading editor
    • ^ and that's a completely reasonable opinion, but don't get ticked if people respond to a "what if" question that you created :P (and invited people to answer!) remember, this is the internet. We are all basically in a fantasy world right now.

      back to your post, I agree that other movies aren't very likely, but I don't think the actors' ages is something that will worry Paramount very much

        Loading editor
    • I call it Tinkerbell logic. If you make enough believe the sequels won't be made (and stop others from believing it will) then the sequels will never see the light of day. The reality is, if Paramount wants it done, it doesn't matter if everyone else in this world thinks and argues that they won't do it. It's their money, so they get to reap what they sow.

        Loading editor
    • ^ Tinkerbell logic? "I don't believe in movies, I don't-I don't-I don't!"

        Loading editor
    • After what bay did to Optimus Prime, turning Robo-Jesus Optimus Prime into a Shell Shock Sociopath war veteran? No thank you. I'd rather have a bad Shyamalan airbender that underperforms as opposed to a Bay film that would make an infinite amount of money and skew the public perception of the franchise.

      Not to mention, if you thought the racist stereotypes in Shyamalans movie were bad. A Bay movie would amp that up to 11.

      Remember Skids and Mudflap in T2? Imagine that but applied to Asian people. It sucks to see your favorite childhood Icons ruined by a hack filmmaker. But between Bay and Shyamalan I'd take Shyamalan.

      @ Neo

      Just like tinkerbell Logic, ignore and say you don't believe in Hasdi, and he'll go away. The franchise is coming to an end anyway, let him move on,

      I'm actually writing a blog right now explaining why there will never be a good live action Avatar The Last Airbender Movie.

        Loading editor
    • http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/22755/20140522/neon-genesis-evangelion-live-action.htm

      Remember the Fanboy Panic that erupted a few months back when a prankster posted that Bay was planning to produce and direct a live action Neon Genesis Evangelion Movie? The rumor was proven to be false, but it terrified everyone.

        Loading editor
    • send a link to your blog when it is done.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message