Epic.
Printable View
Wow, did that movie look awesome. December just isn't going to come fast enough.
Sooooooo pretty.
This looks amazing.
This movie is being significantly overlooked in my opinion. I don't think people quite understand the significance of this picture yet. Its the first time in a while that a film studio is willing to spend big bucks ($300 millions worth) on a sci-fi movie which isn't a remake or sequel to an established franchise. If this movie tanks, then don't expect anything original coming out of Hollywood anytime soon.
To elaborate on my first post, this movie looks be one hell of a ride. Some of the action within the trailer looks immense. Just imagining all of this in 3D is too cool for words. I understand the main criticism of this movie though, that the story is oversimplified and cliche. I like to think that James Cameron has a lot of tricks up his sleeves but even if the story is as straightforward as the trailer makes it out to be, then at least the action will make it all worthwhile.
I have yet to see a James Cameron film that I didn't like. I have a lot of confidence that this movie will do pretty well. Also just because a story is simple or a bit cliche doesn't automatically make it a bad movie. So long as the story can immerse the audience and make them feel emotions, than the film and story are successful (at least in my opinion). Lets not forget that Titanic is a fairly simple story, its a formula thats used often in movies, yet that movie did very well, and dispite the fact that it got a little mushy at times it was an enjoyable movie to watch (again, at least in my opinion).
I believe this movie is going to do just fine and I can't wait to see it.
I really liked how they matched james cameron’s previous successes with appropriate sings of the movie such as a robot for terminator aliens for aliens and an orgosm for titanic
For some reason James Cameron shamelessly selling himself in the trailer made it seem all the more epic. Although he skipped The Abyss!
I'm fully agreed on anything you just said. A lot of his movies are made up of tired ideas but the characters he places within these stories is what pulls the movie along. Aliens is a good example. Not an entirely original story but still a pleasure to watch as you really get involved with the characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by the AJman
Still not sure whether or not this movie will be as successfully as James Cameron hopes. I think they want this to be the next Star Wars or something. It has every right to be but I just don't see that much hype surrounding this movie considering it just over a month before its release. I'd imagine Fox will be going all out with the advertising from now till its release though.
It does look to have some cliche elements, but trailers keep a lot from you, too. I think on the outside The Terminator looks like a cheesy 80's action flick, but its contents were more and it spawned a huge franchise. Who knows! With Star Wars wrapped up, hopefully that fanbase moves on to this.
Although my negative side says it will open at number 1 through a high budget and nice movie history from the director, then be dethroned by the next weekend's competition, and the next weekend slip from the top 3 altogether. But hopefully I'm very wrong.
this is sparta!!!! er I mean our land!
looks pretty good so far, it got me intrested
This seems worryingly :bou::bou::bou::bou: to me :*(
The movie does look good.
I'm just not sure whether or not it's going to be as huge a success as they want it to be, though.
Maybe it's just because of the video quality, but the CGI looks incredibly poor for such a big budget production! :D
I'll probably see it, but I don't expect it to fair well at the box office.
The CG on most of the aliens seems shoddy, but the plot also seems way too tired, clichéd, and boring to me.
It may wind up being decent, but it's no Lord of the Rings.
YouTube - James Cameron's Avatar -Thanator Chase
I advise all the people doubting this movie to watch the clip above. Not only does it remind us that James Cameron is one badass filmaker but it also does the CGI some justice that the trailers simply couldn't. Its hard to think that those water effects at the end are all CGI. This movie will be a game changer, trust me.
I saw this when I went to see Ninja Assassin and it looks great. my Game design teacher asked us if we wanted to schedule a class gathering to go see this in replacement for an assignment and everybody agreed. The thing is though that the movie comes out one day after our semester ends. I wonder if he realized that.
Hmm, that was a painfully cliched scene, not to mention the cgi is even worse on that monster thing. I actually don't want to watch it now that I've seen that! :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
LIES! Ok in all seriousness whats not to like? It was intense enough watching it on Youtube, imagine what it'll be like in Imax 3D. I like how the action was displayed so smoothly instead of this shaky cam crap which has plagued almost every action movie since the Bourne Identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad Bromance
Although I hate James Cameron with a passion and have never enjoyed a single movie that he has had a hand in, this movie looks pretty decent. Though looks and are are two completely different things and I expect the storyline and characters to be terrible.
The design of the blue cat people is horrendous. The CGI looked awful in the clip but I'm assuming it'll be amazing in the cinema. But what's really worrying is the plot. It's smurfing (pun intended) Dances With Wolves in space. Hell, it's The Last Samurai in space *yawn*Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzLIES! Ok in all seriousness whats not to like? It was intense enough watching it on Youtube, imagine what it'll be like in Imax 3D. I like how the action was displayed so smoothly instead of this shaky cam crap which has plagued almost every action movie since the Bourne Identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad Bromance
I'm assuming you didn't watch the entire clip then. The water effects at the end of the clip are the pinnacle of CGI as far as I'm concerned. You must be blind to think otherwise. I also like the classy music used as well. Kind of a mix between Predator and Aliens.Quote:
Originally Posted by sephireland
When's this getting released in cinemas? I know the premiere was on last night. Ideally this weekend because my girlfriend and I will be going to the cinema tomorrow night and we would see this for sure.
It looks decent and I might end up going to see it in theaters (which I don't do often any more). But I don't have very high expectations and I can also see it ending up being very lame and cliche.
Its released next Thursday in the UK and worldwide the day after. No idea why the UK release is a day early but I'm not complaining. There hasn't been any proper reviews yet but word on the street is that the critics all loved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Edge
Punk kids born in the 1990s do not get to complain about 'bad' CGI. Especially not when they're of the standard this film's offering.
Anyway, the film looks like it could well be a case of "simple story told well". I've seen journalists echoing Dreddz's sentiment about the lack of a pre-existing story or book behind this film, and its potential effects; the film's all the more ambitious for it.
Regardless of whether the work is 'cliched', it's got potential as long as the context is original. And original world, culture and environment. While the little we've seen of the colonial army is hardly original, the Pandora planet and its environs are definitely looking like a very well-realised fantasy setting.
I'm pretty impressed by what I've seen so far. Of course, I'm biased, as I've yet to be disappointed by anything Cameron has done as well.
I'm looking forward to this movie. I'm going to see it on release night in IMAX. :D
Want any help in chasing the kids off of your lawn? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Early reviews are in. Seems very positive so far, and all the critics are praising the special effects. Most are agreeing that they are indeed revolutionary. I don't want to tell everyone I told them so but........yeah.
James Cameron truly is the man.
The trouble is that there's too many people everywhere insisting it will be either:
1. a film that will shake cinema to its very foundations and be the greatest thing ever
2. a load of old rubbish with no redeeming features at all.
And I don't see it being either of those two things.
I just hope its worth my 8.50e next Friday night.
:D Reviews have been good and my tickets are booked for thursday night. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. Go JC!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Me and my friends have got tickets to go see it at 3.00am this Friday at Imax. The plan is to get as pissed/stoned as possible beforehand and then turn up to the movie. Can't friggin wait!
Maybe I'll go see this tomorrow.
Random news: Avatar has just been nominated for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director at the Golden Globes.
I watched this movie in 3D one minute past midnight today and it was
smurfing awesome.
Posted this in the last movie you watched section but I'm posting it here too. Might help people reel in their expectations: Avatar 3D. I should state that I am a geek and in geek world James Cameron is a GOD! I was smurfing drooling over this movie and though the clips were worrying the fanboy in me just kept on believing.
Maybe I'm getting old and I just don't get it anymore but I was shocked at how ordinary Avatar was.
The good: Special fx were mind blowing! Holy :bou::bou::bou::bou:!!!!!!!! Never seen a movie look this good.
The bad: No tension at all. Characters I didn't care a jot about. Blatant Dances With Wolves rip off (though nowhere near as well executed as that slightly above average flick) and a serious lack of humour led to a dull experience overall.
I suppose the best way to sum it up is to say this: All I could think of while watching was how good Jurassic Park, Aliens, Starship Troopers etc would look with this technology. 4/10. :( watch District 9 instead.
Saw Avatar last night. Dunno if it was such a good idea to watch the film at 3.00am after 5 pints. When it got to 5.00am or so I was so knackered I could barely sit up in my seat. Plus the intensity of some of the 3D, especially during the action scenes almost make me puke at some points. Fortunately I made it through the entire film without passing out although I was extremely disorientated after the film.
As for the film itself, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Definitely not a perfect film but still very entertaining. While I may be jumping the gun, I'm gonna say now that this is the future of film-making. Seeing something of this calibar in Imax 3D puts every other epic to shame. The 3D isn't used as a gimmick and genuinely immerses you into the film. Plus the glasses were a lot more effective in terms of displaying colour and making everything less blurry compared to other 3D films. That was my biggest concern going into the film and fortunately it didn't seem to be a problem at all.
I guess my only problem with the film is how predictable and kind of cheesy it turned out in parts. The dialogue is very iffy and I can't help but feel that if they made the film more mature and not lump it with a 12A certificate that it may have turned out better. Saying that though, the action in this film was friggin awesome. The films climax, to put it short, blew my mind. The audience was loving it too. Almost every 20 seconds you could hear the entire audience gasp. It was great.
Bottom line, go see it. Its James Cameron for christs sake.
Haha my uber awesome mate is obsessing over it and making me wanna go watch it. Thought I'd share my mum's thoughts:
Mum: Another film that scares me is that new one with the green men..
Me: Avatar, with the blue men?
Mum: Yes
Me: O_o..
So thankfully she won't be there when I watch it, which better be soon =/ It's good they're finally getting out some films that are looking good - last film I watched that was good [since New Moon doesn't come under that category] was probably back in the summer, and I can't even name it. This film better not let me down is all I can say :)
Damn you, krissy; now there's no point in seeing the movie!
Oh man, I was so close to just walking out of the movie I was so bored of it. I felt attached to approximately zero of the characters and the plot is ridiculously predictable. The whole time I felt like they were trying to just trying to make a movie that would fit a video game well. And it was like 2.5 hours. Way disappointed. Lots of other people seem to dig it though.
So this movie has absolutely zero things going for it then? Bull. The plot is predictable but the execution is still done well. The characters are all fun to watch (even Stephen Lang with his sometimes laughable dialogue). And even if all of that still doesn't do it for you, then what about the action? Or the 3D? Come on, its amazing.
Oh, and need I remind you that this movie has a mech with a friggin knife. I guess only a true nerd would be able to appreciate that.
I swear this is Pocahontas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
yes
2009
http://faidzalmb.files.wordpress.com...imus-prime.jpg
2001
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nZNnCnFc5d...20/Jehuty2.JPG
2000
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nZNnCnFc5d...drockWaltz.jpg
do i need to see this movie in 3d?
Two of those are anime and the other sucks. Never said Avatar was the first movie to have a mech with a knife anyway so why bother posting those?
And yes, you need to see this movie in 3D.
I think perhaps I will see this movie before I have the chance to be very upset about the possibly racial implications. Ignorance is bliss, and I want to feel the bliss of this digital world fall around me.
Where did I say it had absolutely nothing going for it? I said I was ridiculously bored of it and it didn't meet the expectations I had for it, but I didn't say it had nothing going for it. As a tech-demo, it sure was impressive, but I mean come on if you spend nearly half a billion dollars total on the movie then you'd better have some pretty explosions. The 3D was boring and only served to hurt my eyes when I tried to strain them to focus on anything that wasn't in the foreground. I would disagree with the claim that the characters were fun to watch. In fact Stephen Lang's character was probably my favorite to watch just because I laughed at about nearly every line or overacted motion he initiated. I found the plot horribly paced, one minute it's dragging out a part of the storyline needlessly, and then in the next it's zooming through some of the important parts. I also suffixed my post saying a lot of people enjoyed the movie, and that is great. Good for them. I am saying that personally I did not enjoy the movie and that I was disappointed, but the fact that you enjoyed it is cool for you, dued. I just don't think it's this piece of award-deserving, cinematic art when in reality it is just the same old story everyone has seen in 100000 movies and 100000 videogames with some mindblowingly expensive SFX slapped on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
I completely agree with this statement. That being said, the expensive SFX really did look expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croyles
For a good portion of this movie, I felt like I was watching the live-action/CGI version.
I'll just post what I thought about it from another forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen the movie or much more than the two videos you posted here. To be honest though, that second video highlights some little things that really bother me with the look of the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzLIES! Ok in all seriousness whats not to like? It was intense enough watching it on Youtube, imagine what it'll be like in Imax 3D. I like how the action was displayed so smoothly instead of this shaky cam crap which has plagued almost every action movie since the Bourne Identity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad Bromance
The first is the movement of those humanoid dudes and now the giant creature in that video. When they move it just seems unnatural. It's hard to put your finger on, but that giant creature for example just seems to defy the laws of physics with how quickly it moves. The thing feels like it has no weight to it; something that big shouldn't be jumping around and accelerating that fast. Now you can try to excuse it by saying things like it's an alien planet and the creature is obviously not something you'd find on Earth, but the problem is that when you take the movement of something that far outside the experience of the audience it just looks wrong, and even if you can't say why, a lot of people will notice.
My other problem is the little interactions with the environment. When the humanoid guy runs, there are plants brushing aside and swaying as he runs through them, but it doesn't look right either. Either it's bad collision detection or it's simply that they tried to hand animate it and they couldn't do it right.
Now does this ruin the experience? Not totally. The 3D still looks great, and that's certainly the best CGI water effects I've ever seen even if it's not perfect, but I can't watch something like this that's supposed to be a lush near photo-realistic world and not notice the subtle things that take me out of the visuals. A lot of it you may never notice because it goes to fast or the focus isn't on it, but that scene really bothered me because I did pick up on the little things almost because the rest is so good.
I still want to see the final film eventually, but I'm not getting my hopes up for something earth shattering, even technologically, though I'm sure the new filming techniques will gain acceptance in the industry.
I think because the Na'vi are lanky it kind of makes their movements look a little stiff. I can assure you that everything seems to move naturally when watching the film. At least in my opinion. The way I see it is this, the movie isn't trying to be 100% realistic in terms of what is physically possible but it is trying to convince you that it is happening right in front of you. What this does is it gives you a very distorted view on reality which you accept as real which ultimately makes the movie quite a surreal experience to watch. You have to stop comparing it to real life and just go with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
What you need to understand is that what you have seen so far only stratches the surface of what is in the actual film. The last hour of the movie is what truly sets this film apart from other films. Up untill that point you feel as though the technology used hasn't really served its purpose but when you see the scale of some of the scenes near the end of the film you understand why this film is so revolutionary.Quote:
I still want to see the final film eventually, but I'm not getting my hopes up for something earth shattering, even technologically, though I'm sure the new filming techniques will gain acceptance in the industry.
Most realistic movie I've ever seen. They should make games have this feature, would be amazing.
Listening to the reviews, does the movie have anything going for it except the graphics? Sure, everyone comments on how well the CGI is done, but I haven't heard anything about the quality of the characters, the dialogue, or anything else except the graphics. I mean, I haven't heard a single line of dialogue quoted from this movie.
The CGI may be impressive, but as technology progresses, it will get old fast, and the graphics will be seen to be just as forgettable as the rest of the movie.
This film is not something that will be forgotten about anytime soon. I could talk about this film in detail if I really wanted but I don't wanna spoil it. Ill just say that it has a strong emotional backbone which definitely leaves an impression with you. And Stephen Lang is just plain awesome as Quatrich. Worth seeing this film for his performance alone.
Here's the two things I've heard most about this film: A) The visuals are incredible, and B) The storyline is predictable, cliche, and slightly racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
And after seeing the film, that basically sums up everything. The only notable performance was Zoe Saldana's who managed to shine through even with a blue alien layered over her. That being said, it's still an entertaining film. There will be moments where you'll sort of smirk at the predictability of the story which has already been told in Last Samurai (a god awful film), Dancing with Wolves, Pocahontas, etc. But the visuals and the action sequences are enough to keep you entertained for the 2 hour and 40 minute show.
I honestly don't understand why everyone goes on about the story. The overarching story is familar territory but the events that occur throughout the story are unique to the film. And didn't District 9 basically have the same story as Avatar? Why isn't everyone attacking that film for its originality. Oh right, the public are stupid.
District 9 was SO much more nuanced than Avatar.
In Avatar (as in Last Samurai, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas), you have a white dude originally aligned with greedy/imperialistic forces who seek to destroy the native people. Dude (SPOILER)falls in love with the chief's daughter (how much more cliche can you get?) and proceeds to not only become assimilated into the native society, but (SPOILER)he becomes their leader.
There are several things in avatar that are seen over and over again in cinema, which is why people call it predictable.
The native people (whether they be Japanese, Native American, Na'vi) are technologically weaker than whatever forces they're up against. Typically there's a nature vs. technology element in there too, with the native peoples being more in tune with nature, spirituality, etc. And the ones aligned with nature will always be the good guys.
There are a couple elements in regards to race in Avatar that keeps springing up elsewhere in cinema as well, and I found it kind of fascinating the predictability of it.
1) The superethnicity of whiteness (i.e. White people are capable of doing anything just as good as natives/ethnic people - in most cases even better than the people who teach them these skills. IE: Jake Sully being able to (SPOILER)capture the giant bird at the end, leading to the Na'vi people to literally bow down to him.)
2) Ethnic characters serving Whiteness (by either being defeated in combat or displaying weaker skills. In Avatar (SPOILER)it seemed that the only reason the various tribes rallied together was due to Jake's influence. They fought for him, and died in the process. )
3) Rejection of hostility towards White characters (Anyone who is hostile towards the white Protagonist is either forced to accept them or usually defeated/killed (Kocoum in Pocahontas, (SPOILER)Tsu'Tey in Avatar))
4) Ethnic "cohort" serves white protagonist (i.e. Mr. Miyagi or any sort of "teacher" role, who guides the protagonist into the ethnic culture/society)
You can see every one of these elements in Avatar. These are cinematic elements that are SO common, that there are classes in film schools devoted to studying this Captain Whitey-save-a-minorty phenomenon.
Personally, I really do think it's so interesting how filmmakers consciously or unconsciously play into these predictable storylines, and the social/psychological implications behind the decision to do so.
On the flip side, in District 9, you have a man who actively fights AGAINST becoming an alien. He hates them, he fights it the whole way. And in the end, he does not become their hero. He is unlikable for much of the film, and the intelligent one in the film is actually the alien, he was so tempted to betray. You'll notice that much of the elements which makes Avatar so predictable don't exist in District 9. There is no inter-racial/species love story, no heroification of the protagonist, no helpful native to guide him on the journey, etc. It doesn't follow the typical storyline AT ALL.
[/end "omg you're analyzing it too much!!" post]
WatQuote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
It looked awesomely gorgeous. Nuff said.
Oh man I'm going to punch you in the nose Dreddz. I just saw this movie yesterday with my brothers and it was fantastic. I missed a little bit of the begginning because we were running a little late and my brother wanted to get popcorn. From what I saw though was phenomenal. That movie literally almost had me crying man it as so beautiful. Very emotional. Despite being similar to a movie that came out 19 years ago, and which a lot of people probably haven't seen it since around that time, it was really good.
It was cool to see Guile play as a villain. When he got that guy out of the pod and punched him I wanted to yell "Sonic Boom". He was badass at the end of the movie too. I wish I could've seen it in 3-D. I heard you didn't even need the glasses. The movie was superb looking, had great action, and was emotional. My brothers really liked it too. I couldn't believe that my older brother didn't even realize that it took place on anothr planet despite the movie calling the planet Pandora, having floating continents, alien species, and alien vegetation.
I definitely needed the glasses.
This is a simulatude film. If you don't know what it means I'm not going to bother explaining it, but just know that Cameron is a simulatude director and so is Spielberg. They essentially are rich because they make the same movie over and over with the same formula. The only catch is that the change the character names and settings a bit so it's not too similar and most people always go to see it regardless of knowing it's going to be the same thing. I didn't want to see the film, but eventually just decided to give it shot because like everyone else I was amazed with the visuals. It was pretty -- that much is true.
So Avatar = Titanic?
Oh yeah I can see how The Abyss is just like True Lies or The Terminator or Avatar. And Spielberg has definitely made the same type of film over and over - Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Catch Me If You Can, Munich - all so similar!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
Personally I think AI is like a carbon copy of Minority Report.
Shark, Aliens, Thierry Henry, Nazis, Nazis, Dinosaurs, Tom Hanks, Terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
All equally frightening in their own way.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunny
Where did I lose you?
Where'd your thought come from that Avatar equals Titanic. The only thing they have in common is being directed by the same director.
It was a response to Shiny's post, which was directly above me and therefore a quote was unnecessary.
I just went to see this. I think Cameron has been tooting his own horn for far too long about this thing. I expected it to be over-hyped garbage with the gimmick of having new technology.
I was wrong. I don't even think it was a film so much as an experience. Sure, there are tons of formulaic movie bits. Sure it's Dances with Wolves mixed with Ferngully set on an alien planet. That doesn't take away from how incredible of an experience this movie is. I walked out of the theater overwhelmed and a bit at a loss for words. I was still trying to drink it all in.
I don't even know what else to say. Go see it, preferably in 3D.
After seeing the film, my sentiments somewhat reflect what others have said:
- The story and writing were average, and reasonably predictable.
- The visuals were absolutely amazing.
- Also, being an audio guy, I definitely appreciated the musical score and theme song. The sound effects were likewise exceptional, save for the sub-par audio system in the theater. :eep:
And the reason certain well-known writers/directors reuse the same story template? It apparently works. :p
Just saw this tonight.
It is definitely pretty, I will say that much. But God was the story boring. I knew where it was going near the beginning. Were it not pretty, I would have left 30 minutes into it; the explosions and the end were at least entertaining.
I thought it was a pretty good movie. I'm glad I went to see it.
The best cinematic experience of my life. Pure awesome.
UNOBTANIUM
I can't believe I waited so long to watch this movie. I kick myself...owww.
Best new sci-fi I've ever seen, I loved it.
Watching the movie is proof enough. :p
yeah
but it's great in 3d!!
prettty
Yeah, and Dances with Wolves, etc. etc. It's still a great experience and deserves all the praise it gets as far as I am concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
I think the movie was a fantastic experience. Great cinematography, great special effects and CGI visuals, great soundtrack, a solid story and solid characters; thought the story was fairly predictable, but it was still solid.
Before this, we had only seen 3D in cinemas as a gimmick (i.e. Shrek), and I think this has just brought a whole new level of complexity to cinematography in general and allows for much better expression from the director. Really superb.
Is any story really new? Why is this what everyone's so obsessed about? Is it some sort of reactionary anti-hype? Probably every movie that any person can claim to be one of their favorites has a literary of film precursor.
Just because the story (like most) is lightly recycled doesn't mean that it's not a fantastic cinematic experience. Everyone is entitled to not enjoy it, but if your dislike of it is predicated on one these reasons then I feel like you're just being snobby.
Just to admit I'm Mr. Pot talking to Mr. Kettle, I can sometimes be a music snob based on the over simplicity of something musical, but I'm also the first to praise something that is not necessarily unique, but is still amazing despite the fact that it only uses 2-3 chords.
I may fail at a repeat opinion because I skimmed the topic like a douche, but with an estimated budget of $280-$300 million (although there was a studio statement it was $237 million) and an estimated $150 for marketing, you don't try to reinvent storytelling. You use what has been proven to work with audiences with as much twist to it as you can get away with. Then you hope people wank to special effects enough to love it despite any flaws. I'm not saying it can't be a fresher storytelling wheel and be a hit, it can, but it's dangerous ground to go there with this budget handed to him.
Or so I say. I haven't seen the movie. I just hear a lot of complaints and that's my take on it from mouth to ears. I may feel completely different when I see it so discard all this.
And by original you mean archetypical? Yes, the film was visually stunning but that never really made the "okay-at-best" storyline we've all heard several times before any less formulaic. Maybe I just dislike the film because absolutely everyone I know is raving about how this is the best sci-fi movie they've ever seen, and it didn't meet my expectations. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Haven't directors like George Lucas and Michael Bay already proven that this way of filmmaking is not good? Wait, I forgot, it's just about cashing in. Screw trying to make quality films on top of that. :roll2Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctiluca
It is what it is. :shrug: I can't blame a studio for wanting a safe script. Naturally I'd like a story to be good, but I'm just saying I don't blame them, either.
I don't get it either specifically because most of those movies they mentioned also haven't been around in over ten years and I know most movies people go out to see each year isn't completely different than the rest. In an article Cameron admitted his movie wasn't entirely original, but it was inspired by those classic story types. He just wanted to make a new fresh take on those classic themes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeargdribble
I personally loved the movie.
I just saw this in 3D IMAX and LOVED it.
That said, I don't really see why so many people hark over the story. Stories are constantly rehashed, that is something true in books, movies, shows, etc. Everything is just rehashed. I actually really enjoyed the story, although, I felt it jumped around a bit.
I think the film was an amazing display of cinematography as well as an interesting depiction into a fully realized world that you only see a part of. Everything has its own ecology and vigor, and the plants were amazingly pretty. And for some reason, the entire culture and beliefs of the Na'vi were very believable (although, it reminded me too much of that stupid fairy in LoZ:OoT.)
I dunno, I think people dwell too much on what makes a movie bad and gloss over what make it so good. Who cares if the story is rehashed. You're not going to find much originality in films anymore. It's hard to be original and have it be good, and believable, so make an adaption on what is already proven to work.
Well yeah, that's what people generally do when they don't like something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that Avatar is already the second highest grossing movie of all time. With only Titanic beating it. That means that James Cameron has both the highest and second highest grossing movie under his belt. This guy is a beast as far as commercial film-making goes.
This won't do his ego any good. Shame one of those is his worst film by a mile. Well, except for Piranha 2 maybe :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Titanic is awesome. At least the last hour anyway. And as far as I'm concerned Cameron deserves to have a big ego. Its not like his movies are bad. Now I just hope he goes on and makes Battle Angel next.
Titanic would be great if it was a silent film and Billy Zane wasn't in it. Alas it's not and he is.
Cameron might be up against his ex-wife for Best Director at the Oscars, that should be fun.
Imagine the bragging rights you get when the two highest grossing films of all time are both yours!
Cameron deserves the best director Oscar. You have to give credit to a guy who creates new technology to make his film. Plus The Hurt Locker is such an overrated film anyway. Kathryn Bigelow should cut the crap and make a Point Break sequel already.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
I'd rather give credit to someone who made a really good film (mind you, this IS the Oscars) - and The Hurt Locker overrated?! It's fantastic. I've not seen many films as nerve-shredding, and it's ironic that whilst Avatar is let down a bit by oh-so-obvious references to stuff like Iraq ('Unobtanium' - ha!), The Hurt Locker which is set in Iraq takes pains to avoid any political statements, and is all the better for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzCameron deserves the best director Oscar. You have to give credit to a guy who creates new technology to make his film. Plus The Hurt Locker is such an overrated film anyway. Kathryn Bigelow should cut the crap and make a Point Break sequel already.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Mind you in a perfect world Moon and Let the Right One In would trounce all anyway.
Well he shouldn't have much trouble funding some of his other projects now :p
I'd rather credit the best film by giving it the best picture Oscar. I think you need to factor in a few more things with the best director Oscar or else there would be no point in having the two seperate Oscars.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
And The Hurt Locker is ok. Just didn't change my world. I have no real qualms with the movie.
I'd probably be less inclined to criticize this drivel if it wasn't being heralded akin to the second coming of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper
It was pretty and entertaining, but good graphics does not a good movie make.
I dont know why people were expecting a brilliant story.
I just saw it yesterday going in expecting to be meh'd
But the 3d effects and very good set pieces were enough to completely suck me in and so I really enjoyed it!
The story itself wasnt original, but I thought the world and creatures were VERY imaginative and helped to draw me in.
People putting the film on a pedestal will always ruin the experience for others, why not just ignore it and make up your own mind?
If I would rate the film purely on how much enjoyment I had, I would probably give it a 9/10.
I concur :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeargdribble
IMAX'd it yesterday, though I think i was sitting too close to the screen (2nd row). Still looked good. About what I expected as far as content.
That isn't necessarily a shot at Iraq considering he didn't make it up and the term has existed far longer Cameron has been making movies or the Iraq war(s).Quote:
I've not seen many films as nerve-shredding, and it's ironic that whilst Avatar is let down a bit by oh-so-obvious references to stuff like Iraq ('Unobtanium' - ha!),
I love that movie, especially Ujio.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILFWatQuote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
UJIO! URRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAA!
Saw this over a week ago. Visuals were great though the 3-D glasses combined with a movie close to three hours gave me a serious headache.
I didn't care for the plot cause most of the plot is spelled out to you in the five minute trailers, which gets annoying cause the movie takes over two hours to tell you what the trailer accomplished in a few minutes. This being Hollywood allowed me to guess most of the ending, cause heaven forbid we do something that makes audiences think. The one little "twist" in the ending came across more sappy and stupid than creative. Not to mention the predictable Deus Ex Machina for the final battle. The really sad thing is that it would have been so easy to make a better story from what they had but its all copy and paste from other films. The ending is also unrealistic, (SPOILER)we all know damn well the greedy humans are just going to come back and fire blast the whole surface of the planet until its a scorched crater, making the planet close to uninhabitable and then start digging.
Overall, it was nice for the world design and a few creative elements. I never cared for the tribe but the other inhabitants of Pandora as well as the world brought back memories of some of my favorite world design elements from FFIX and X. Beyond the special effects it was a mediocre Hollywood film. I doubt I'll ever feel the need to watch it ever again.
Wait, Avatar isn't? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Avatar deserves best picture & best director hands down. The Hurt Locker or any other flick may be a good film but this is just in a different league. This is a film that will be shown for generations, whereas the opposition, won't. I just hope the Oscars give it the recognition it deserves and don't go all noble.
I'd say it's more deserving of Best Director (since Cameron has achieved a lot in making it) than it is of Best Film.
I can probably get behind this.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Well it seems that Avatar snagged both the best drama and best picture awards at the golden globes as well as Mr. JC winning best director. Good stuff.
Best Picture (Drama) is one award, the Golden Globes for no explicable reason divides Best Film into two awards: Best Film (Drama) and Best Film (Comedy/Musical).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
if Avatar is even nominated for best picture at the oscars I will gouge out my left eye. if it is nominated and wins I will commit seppuku.
You will definitely be down to one eye, and I'd get that blade handy as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill
Have you seen the Hurt Locker? It's incredible, really one of the best films I've seen all year.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzCameron deserves the best director Oscar. You have to give credit to a guy who creates new technology to make his film. Plus The Hurt Locker is such an overrated film anyway. Kathryn Bigelow should cut the crap and make a Point Break sequel already.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayi
Avatar for sure will be nominated for Best Picture. They've doubled the number of possible nominees in an attempt to give nominations to more blockbuster films (and thereby increase viewership) rather than focus so much on the smaller critically acclaimed films that the American public don't watch. It's like they knew Avatar was coming and revamped the Award show to accommodate it. If Avatar is nominated for screenplay, than that's some funky shenanigans going on there. A win for Best director is iffy just because of the reputation Cameron has built up for himself within the Industry of being a jackass. And the Academy loves to make history with their awards, which they would do by giving Best Director to Bigelow making her the first female to ever win that award.
I'd be happy if The Hurt Locker, UP or Inglourious Basterds took the Best Picture prize. I don't think Avatar deserves it.
I may diagree with them about Avatar, but I imagine Dredzz isn't the sort of person to say a film is overrated when they havn't seen it!
It was all the fuss over The Dark Knight not being nominated last year, along with the low viewing figures the year before when the main contenders were No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood - brilliant films, but not exactly mass appeal - that partially prompted the move to ten Best Picture nominees (a silly gimmick in my opinion).
To be honest even if Avatar does win all the big prizes I'm hardly going to blow a gasket (life's too short to go nuts over the Oscars), it won't be anywhere near as bad as when the Titanic juggernaut beat LA Confidential. As great as it is The Hurt Locker won't win I feel, it's just been too small a film commercially, it makes No Country look like a mega blockbuster.
Mind you if Leona Lewis wins Best Song, now that would be a travesty XD
I liked it. It's obviously not going to completely revolutionise the way cinema is thought about but the story is well executed and visually it's amazing.
I think all the people accusing the film of racism are missing a pretty important point: (SPOILER)Sully had an advantage over the natives in that he knew the human military from the inside, and was capable of thinking in the same manner as their commanders. I don't think the film was saying so much, "white people are genetically more competent" as it was saying, "white people are culturally more vicious and therefore more competent at war in particular". This isn't a particularly anti-minority view and it actually resonates with things that very left-wing and anti-racist authors, e.g. Howard Zinn, have written. Zinn's account of the conquest of the American continent, starting with the first chapter of A People's History of the United States, is actually pretty reflected by the message of Avatar in my opinion: the natives simply didn't understand the Europeans. They were incapable of thinking as viciously as the Europeans did, of even comprehending the possibility that people could behave in such a vile fashion, and so they were slaughtered mercilessly. This hardly means the Europeans were in any way "superior". It just means that they thought in a different, and much less civilised, fashion than the natives did. The idea that someone from a largely peaceful culture that doesn't have mass warfare would be able to defeat a culture based around militarism strikes me as pretty naïve. That Jake is able to comprehend, and therefore defeat, the humans doesn't mean he's "superior" to the natives; it just means he understands their thinking. That, I think, is the point Cameron was trying to make by having him lead their war effort.
And I definitely didn't get that it was praising militarism in any case. Lest we forget, the only reason the Na'vi even won is because Eywa answered their prayers. A pretty clear case of nature overpowering technology in my view. I don't see anything in the film implying that Jake was the only one who could have made those prayers; I don't see the film implying that only Jake could have tamed the Toruk (indeed, five Na'vi had previously tamed it). I do think it meant to imply that he was the one who took the initiative because he was more inclined to think in militaristic terms. (Some of the Na'vi's comments also implied that the Toruk could only be tamed in times of crisis or flux; if the war against the humans wasn't a time of crisis or flux, what was?)
I'm not saying some of the implications of the plot aren't still somewhat questionable but I think a lot of them are being blown out of proportion.
I concur The Mans stance on the movie...
I enjoyed verily much! I want to see it again!
I will say having Avatar as the biggest film of 2009 is infinitely preferable to having Transformers 2 as the biggest.