io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 11:01 PM
Sat Nov 21
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/23/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
Smurf-porn in space?
3D Smurf-porn in space in IMAX
08/23/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/22/09
I watched the trailer frame-by-frame, mostly concentrating on the creature design, and I had a sneaking suspicion who was responsible, so I looked it up on IMDb and Yep, I was right!
None other than Mr. Wayne Douglas Barlowe!
For me, that's worth the price of admission right there!
I have a couple of concerns: One's been mentioned — "glasses on top of glasses", but nobody's talked about what's gonna happen when this is released on DVD & Blu-Ray!
I suspect the discs aren't gonna come with a pair of 3D glasses.
08/23/09
08/23/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
(edit: I can't get the image to work HERE - it's Christophe Vacher's Darklands. If you've seen it - you know it.)
08/22/09
@MISS MERCY STREET: I've got your back.
08/22/09
@Chimaera: I've always been partial to the Roger Dean floaty islands.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/22/09
I went to a talk by Rob Cook of Pixar a while ago where he explained this. If you create a CGI model of a human face with lines, pores, hair follicles, moles, whatever, and then make the skin completely opaque it doesn't look realistic, it looks too rough. Real skin diffuses the light that shines on it because it is translucent.
I think you may have been guilty of norming Lauren's behaviour, by assuming that her statements were racist, rather than technically correct.
08/22/09
i do want new and intelligent scifi but i am not going to have someone tell me how this is the future of film going......................
YEAH RIGHT !!!!
You want 3D then start thinking about how to do this without having to wear glasses.Every 3D film I even tried to watch looks like krap.weird colrs,headache,uncomfortable,blurry movements....you get the idea
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
Clip-ons, like Dirk suggested, would be good.
08/23/09
I will take scissors and tape just in case when I go watch one of those movies
08/23/09
08/22/09
Stop and think about what you've written. Most dark skinned humans do not have skin that is translucent. You are norming a feature of lighter-skinned humans.
How is that any different than Crayola formerly having a crayon called "flesh" that approximated the skin color of Europeans, negating the flesh color of those people of different backgrounds.
08/22/09
Try this - stretch a black hand across a flashlight. Does that hand block out all light or do some of the photons bounce through the edges of the skin giving a slight glow around rim of the fingers? Congratulations that is translucency and all human skin has it to some degree.
08/22/09
To answer your question.
08/22/09
Seriously.. who the hell goes around complaining about "norming?" Well I guess people like EthanRing do.. I have to wonder how old he is since that sort of thing seems to be the dominion of college kids. Never once have I encountered a person in my life who has a problem with "norming"
Besides, there are much more important things in the world to bitch about such as nitpicking effects sequences in movies like Avatar.
08/22/09
08/22/09
The point of the concept is to give a name to something that is part and parcel of people's every day experience. Often they're hard to see because our worldview is encrusted under centuries of the ideological justification of oppression. That can make the underlying assumptions and processes hard to see even for the victims.
These little things may not be that important in and of themselves. But they piss people off because it reminds them about how other people, those constructed as 'normal' (whether that's in relation to their race, sexuality, gender or bodies), couldn't give a shit about the advantages they have over more oppressed people and aren't going to do anything to try and make life better for their fellow humans.
So I don't think calling it PC mumbo jumbo is really helpful.
Sorry everyone for distracting from the most crucial issue facing us in all our collective lives: will Avatar be any good?
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/23/09
08/22/09
The creature, and other similar films at the time, were made in 3D as a gimmick because the film industry was terrified about being made obsolete by TV. However, it often didn't work because it was dependent on a human projector keeping both films in synch, so many people thought 3D was a rubbish technology when in fact it was the guy doing it at fault.
Now 3D cinema is making a comeback, I guess because it's much easier to make it work when you replace the human with a computer. I think now the thing that Hollywood feels threatened by is their own creative bankruptcy and inability to come up with new ideas, as well as a bit by the games industry, judging by how many movies just feel like a game as you watch them.
This isn't a comment on Avatar or on 3D as a technology per se. I haven't seen the trailer and tbh after reading the comments here I'll probably just wait until I can see the whole thing in IMAX before making a judgement. I just think that amazing technologies are only as good as the storytellers that put them to use. In the case of The Creature I thought it was a great wee movie, and actually would really love to see it in a 3D cinema now, the advantage of modern projector technology.
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/22/09
We are supposed to finish watching this teaser trailer wanting more. Watch it again and listen carefully: the oppressive noise of the music builds over the course of the trailer but never quite reaches a peak and the noise is only periodically pierced by selected elements of audio.
Surely this is a deliberate ploy to leave us wanting a deeper and more immersive experience of the film - one that only the big-screen 3D version can give us!
This first trailer does exactly what it is supposed to - 'tease' us - they don't call it a teaser trailer for nothing!
But I don't feel annoyed or cheated - bring in the full length IMAX 3D experience. I'll be first in line here in Melbourne!
08/22/09
Am I the only one seeing this, or should I be more excited by the trailer to Delgo 2 then I apparently am?