Avatar Superthread

MisterAnarchy

The Sparrow wrote: »

I saw this last night and I have to say I have mixed feelings. The CGI is no doubt mesmerising and it was by far the best thing about Avatar. It is amazing what they achieved. I could take or leave the 3D and it certainly didn't change my mind that 3D is mostly a waste of time. There were a couple of set pieces where the 3D looked good but none of it added to the story.

And talking about the story, it was by far the weakest element of the movie. It was cliched and you could see everything a mile away. And for a movie that was hyped as a 3D revolution, all of the characters were horribly one dimensional. Sigourney Weaver was terrible as the chief scientist also and much of the key plot points just didn't make sense.

I presume that this will be a minority opinion but I couldn't help leaving slightly disappointed. You can have all the CGI and 3D bells and whistles but what is the point if the story is not up to scratch?

I would have preferred if James Cameron had spent less time on the 3D graphics and more time on making the characters more than one dimensional.

I'd go along with that for the most part.

The script was very weak ,the plot could have been summed up in about 2 minutes ,it was childish ,predictable and unoriginal.

It borrowed ideas heavily from The Legend of Zelda computer series.
Hometree was a blatant rip off of the Deku tree,and other ideas were taken from various other sources.Last of the Mohicans,Dances with Wolves ,even Pathfinder :rolleyes:

I wasnt convinced by the acting ,too many one dimensional characters ,and the main actor seemed quite wooden ,his accent was fluctuating constantly too.

That said the CGI was superb and the action scenes were well shot .

It was refreshing to see a genuine scifi film being produced ,one that had some very offbeat and strange concepts.
Normally scifi of this type is reserved for anoraks but I guess Cameron had to accomodate the studios by introducing the love story which took up too much screentime.
Not enough Sci Fi movies are being made nowadays,hopefully Avatar will change this.

I saw the film in 3D and while it definitely added to the experience I felt it was underused at times.

Overall I enjoyed the film but it could have been much better with a good script.
All the technical planning and work that went into producing the film salvaged the script .
Avatar is essentially a kids film but its well worth a watch
7/10 for me.

Flamed Diving

barry181091 wrote: »

So guys is the 3d much good with this movie ??

No, the 3D is better in A Christmas Carol, as is the film.

I can't wait for Alice in Wonderland. The 3D in the trailer looked better than Averagatar.

Flamed Diving

mdwexford wrote: »

If i was 7 i might agree with you.

Isn't it sad how a children's movie could wipe the floor with the supposed "revolutionary" movie of our time...

KerranJast

Every review I've read of Christmas Carol says its godawful and any clips I've seen the characters are that same dead eye creepy ones from Polar Express. Avatar on the other hand was spectacular and the Na'vi were bewitchingly good especially Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

Tusky

So is this best seen in Cineworld 17 or Savoy 1. Would like to hear opinions as I plan to go again next week.

Flamed Diving

KerranJast wrote: »

Every review I've read of Christmas Carol says its godawful and any clips I've seen the characters are that same dead eye creepy ones from Polar Express.

Aww, I must be wrong, then. Shame, since I left thinking the film was great, as did my girlfriend. It simply stuck more or less to the plot of one of the most famous stories ever told. One which will be remembered long after "The Smurfs meet Pocahontas" is forgotten, which should be about six months. In addition, I don't know what the clips were showing, for there were some moments in ACC that I wasn't sure whether I was looking at someone real or not. You really had to look to see the CGI. Furthermore, they made great use of the 3D. I was straining to notice it during Averagatar, except during his video logs. Woo...

KerranJast wrote: »

Avatar on the other hand was spectacular and the Na'vi were bewitchingly good especially Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

Honestly, this movie just looked like a brushed up cut-scene from a high-class Playstation 3 game. Nothing more. Revolutionary, my hole.

As it stands, I have seen both movies. You haven't. You are in no position to judge.

KerranJast

Flamed Diving wrote: »

As it stands, I have seen both movies. You haven't. You are in no position to judge.

Perhaps not but ACC has a 46% rating from RottenTomatoes Top Critics whereas Avatar has 94% from same. That's all I need to know.

Flamed Diving

KerranJast wrote: »

Perhaps not but ACC has a 46% rating from RottenTomatoes Top Critics whereas Avatar has 94% from same. That's all I need to know.

Hype. If you tell enough people that your movie is revolutionary, then they will believe it. Especially if you are a god director.

Tusky

*shudder* - Flamed Diving - you are incredibly irritating. I enjoy hearing other peoples opinions and genuinely don't mind people with polar opposite opinions to myself...but you really come across as smarmy and arrogant in your posts.

L31mr0d

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hype. If you tell enough people that your movie is revolutionary, then they will believe it. Especially if you are a god director.

There's also the possibility that you're absolutely wrong? Maybe? Just saying is all.

I'm sure there where people who walked out of E.T., Star Wars and Jurassic Park and thought they'd seen it all before and the effects weren't anything amazing. I'm also sure those people where wrong.

beans

I'd give Avatar 6.5 / 10

Visually mostly wonderful as has been said before, I'd mark it down on the crumminess of some of the crowd scenes, the cheese-factor and the overall story and plot-development. Once you get past that, you're left with an enjoyable, eye-candy romp. It's certainly nothing special. But I did enjoy the 3d, found myself almost batting away flies on more than one occasion!

Last big blockbuster-type film I saw was probably Jurrasic Park, and I enjoyed this on a similar level Maybe not quite as much, though.

Flamed Diving

Tusky wrote: »

*shudder* - Flamed Diving - you are incredibly irritating. I enjoy hearing other peoples opinions and genuinely don't mind people with polar opposite opinions to myself...but you really come across as smarmy and arrogant in your posts.

I am just really disappointed by the movie. Perhaps it is just incredulity on my part that anyone could find this to be a quality work of art.

L31mr0d wrote: »

There's also the possibility that you're absolutely wrong? Maybe? Just saying is all.

I'm sure there where people who walked out of E.T., Star Wars and Jurassic Park and thought they'd seen it all before and the effects weren't anything amazing. I'm also sure those people where wrong.

You see, I bet the people who didn't like these movies still left saying 'At least the effects were mind-blowing'. When I went to see Avatar I thought this would at least be a festival of effects, if nothing else. I was left disappointed, on all counts. How did this movie look any better than a snazzy PS3 cutscene?

beans wrote: »

I'd give Avatar 6.5 / 10

Visually mostly wonderful as has been said before, I'd mark it down on the crumminess of some of the crowd scenes, the cheese-factor and the overall story and plot-development. Once you get past that, you're left with an enjoyable, eye-candy romp. It's certainly nothing special. But I did enjoy the 3d, found myself almost batting away flies on more than one occasion!

You saw the 3D? Lucky you!

beans

The 3D worked well to layer the scenes and give the impression of depth and space - not much in the way of objects intruding in toward the audience, if that's what you mean? It worked subtly, but well.

Flamed Diving

Save for the odd fern and the like, when running through the forest, I really didn't see much in it. I know many people hate ACC, but what really impressed me was the sense of scale and depth perception it provided. The protruding stuff was fun, but only a gimmick, really. But when Scrooge was walking down the street, you could really "feel" the the volume of the environment, and you could see people walking past windows and definitely see their body as being within the building and away from the street. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but it was mind-blowing to see, and seemed really absent in Avatar. It was almost as if someone took that same setting, and turned it down.

L31mr0d

Flamed Diving wrote: »

How did this movie look any better than a snazzy PS3 cutscene?

Perhaps some context is needed here. Which PS3 cutscenes are you referring to? I'd imagine the FF series is the standard for CG cutscenes and the ones from FFXIII don't even come close to the facial realism of Avatar.

beans wrote: »

The 3D worked well to layer the scenes and give the impression of depth and space - not much in the way of objects intruding in toward the audience, if that's what you mean? It worked subtly, but well.

I'm glad Cameron didn't use 3D gimmicks with people throwing things at the camera, because that's what they are, nothing more than gimmicks. Cameron used the 3D to create an immersing experience, cheap 3D gimmicks only serve to pull the viewer out of the experience and remind them they are watching a film. They also severely ruin the viewers experience if the film is not watched in 3D.

BlitzKrieg

While I wouldnt jump with flamed Diving in his defence of ACC, I will kindly point out that initial responses to avatar reminds me a lot of how people initially responded to Titanic.

case in point. Ebert's review of Titanic: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19971219/REVIEWS/712190303/1023 where he gave it 4 stars.

not to mention the critical reception of the film is still somewhat positive (http://ie.rottentomatoes.com/m/titanic/)


Yet today to the common cinema goer titanic gets a consistent berating as over rated crap. that relied too heavily on sfx to hide what was a very cliched and melodramatic story. Its no surprise that you search any of the worse of threads here and you'll find titanic being named on it numerous times.

look how many times it gets named in the top 10 worst films list here on boards

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=9646426



yet has never been named on the definitve boardsie movie list nor movie of the week.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055203942&highlight=definitive


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=274541



Personnally I would actually rate Titanic higher then avatar, it is the same in the way of melodramatic cliched storytelling, which doesnt bother me in either film, but Titanic actually had more substance in its characters over Avatar, which is the crucial difference between the two. Both rely on very good sfx to carry the plot along and I commend both for it.

Paddy Samurai

Went to see it today had some great cgi and some beautiful images,but overall it was way too long verging on boring.
As for the story it is just a rehash of an old story that we have all seen before ,changed to space....."the new world","pocahintas","Dances with wolves",etc,etc.(Newly arrived outsider identifies with the poor downtrodden natives and helps them fight back against his former evil associates.)
Maybe its just i'm sick of all this enviromental crap been dragged into every film lately.
It's a long time since i fell asleep in a cinema and i came quite near today. I am a huge film collector,but this is one that won't be finding its way into my collection.
Seen it once that was enough.

Flamed Diving

L31mr0d wrote: »

Perhaps some context is needed here. Which PS3 cutscenes are you referring to? I'd imagine the FF series is the standard for CG cutscenes and the ones from FFXIII don't even come close to the facial realism of Avatar.

Well, I am referring to a "done-up" version of a PS3 cutscene, but I didn't really have one in mind, since I don't play computer games anymore, I'm just basing this on what I have seen in passing. If FFXIII is the best out there, I will take that. Given that Cameron has dropped €500m on this film, you would want something that makes a PS3 look like a Mega Drive. I just don't see that.

mdwexford

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Isn't it sad how a children's movie could wipe the floor with the supposed "revolutionary" movie of our time...

Eh it didnt so no, no its not.

Something wrong with you if you didnt enjoy Avatar and think it was revolutionary.

Flamed Diving

mdwexford wrote: »

Eh it didnt so no, no its not.

Something wrong with you if you didnt enjoy Avatar and think it was revolutionary.

Yeah, the same old stuff going around and round. I suppose that is revolutionary, when you think about it.

Tar.Aldarion

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Save for the odd fern and the like, when running through the forest, I really didn't see much in it. I know many people hate ACC, but what really impressed me was the sense of scale and depth perception it provided. The protruding stuff was fun, but only a gimmick, really. But when Scrooge was walking down the street, you could really "feel" the the volume of the environment, and you could see people walking past windows and definitely see their body as being within the building and away from the street. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but it was mind-blowing to see, and seemed really absent in Avatar. It was almost as if someone took that same setting, and turned it down.

The difference with and without the 3D is immense. Don't know how you didn't notice that tbh. The sense of depth was fantastic.

Flamed Diving

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The difference with and without the 3D is immense. Don't know how you didn't notice that tbh. The sense of depth was fantastic.

Well, I didn't see either film in 2D, so maybe if I did both I might have seen it. However, when I compare the only two 3D films I have seen, one clearly made better use of the "new" technology.

Galvasean

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

While I wouldnt jump with flamed Diving in his defence of ACC, I will kindly point out that initial responses to avatar reminds me a lot of how people initially responded to Titanic.

I think poor old Titanic gets an awful lot of undue flak from a generation of young men dragged to see it numerous times as their girlfriends swooned over Leo DiCaprio.
OTT criticism of Titanic = penis envy.

indough

Galvasean wrote: »

I think poor old Titanic gets an awful lot of undue flak from a generation of young men dragged to see it numerous times as their girlfriends swooned over Leo DiCaprio.
OTT criticism of Titanic = penis envy.

this

to be honest its an easy target mostly bashed by people who think saying they dont like it because its a romance will make them appear cool

there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the film that would possibly justify it being considered anywhere close to one of the worst films ever made, obviously it has some flaws but find me a movie that doesnt

there seems to be an overwhelming trend for people to say they hate whatever is popular these days because they think it makes them appear edgy or something

indough

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Aww, I must be wrong, then. Shame, since I left thinking the film was great, as did my girlfriend. It simply stuck more or less to the plot of one of the most famous stories ever told. One which will be remembered long after "The Smurfs meet Pocahontas" is forgotten, which should be about six months.

umm...the story will be remembered, yes, but the film? no...

or are we comparing avatar to the dickens story?

Simian!

I thought the film was absolutely stunning. The story was basic but it has a vast and broad appeal. There were a good few tears shed by, eh, the other half.

My jaw dropped when Jake came out of his cryo chamber at the beginning, just wasn't expecting the 3D element to be that impressive

I really hope this film gets the appreciation it deserves - I don't think I fully appreciated the leap that was made with Jurassic Park and then The Matrix when they came out but this film has taken us another step forward.

Terminator

I saw it in Screen 3, the Omniplex Galway today and wasn't that impressed with the screen size (tiny, underused by a third and blurry at the edges). Does anyone know if this is the norm or if the Eye Cinema is any better for 3D ????

Apart from that, I thought the film was excellent though and the 3D was quite subtle - its amazing what Jim has done in using cine actors and will definitely revolutionise how films are made. The cgi faces work really really well.

Caprica

Seen this earlier today. It was excellent. It lived up to the hype for me. The scences on Pandora were outstanding, with the 3D you felt as you were right there with them.

The story was much better than I expected, the final battle scence and the ending shot were superb. The army guy was a bit OTT but he it fitted the part.

Movie of the year (I think), you have to hand it to Cameron he has delivered.

Sarky

It was Pocahontas with gunships. It offered nothing really original besides extra-pretty CGI, but was entertaining nonetheless because it had a respectable (if done-to-death) story and lots of things exploding.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

I think poor old Titanic gets an awful lot of undue flak from a generation of young men dragged to see it numerous times as their girlfriends swooned over Leo DiCaprio.
OTT criticism of Titanic = penis envy.

I enjoy Titanic for what it is, a big barrel of cheesy dialogue with some fantastic setpieces, and a monumental piece of filmmaking with the effort put into it. DiCaprio has fast become one of my favourite actors over the past few years, it would have been easy for him to ride the teen lust wave and do crappy romcoms for the rest of his career but The Aviator, The Departed and next years Shutter Island have cemented him as great leading actor