Avatar Superthread

Hugh_C

L31mr0d wrote: »

Hair/fur physics is extremely difficult to pull off realistically. The best I've seen seems to look like hair under water or in zero gravity. I'd imagine Cameron realized that he couldn't put fur on the creatures and have it look 100% realistic so he just omitted it and made everything hairless.

I imagine he omitted it because the movie would still be rendering in 2020 if he did

speedboatchase

I wasn't too fond of the simplistic tree-hugging message that began to swamp the final third of the movie and indeed, I actually felt the first 2 hours were far superior to what came before (a lot of cheesiness and kneeling to trees ensued) HOWEVER - fantastic world-building from Cameron, surprisingly funny, jaw-dropping 3D that must be seen in cinemas and the man can still direct fantastic action scenes. I found the Empire review pretty much spot on, it's not T2 and Aliens but it is a phenomenal achievement nonetheless

been to see it twice, once in 2D and first in 3D. 3D was better but that may have been because the cinema was less packed the first time. Thought Pandora was a brilliant world and sitting here at home I actually find myself wishing that I was a Na'vi. It's really weird but I just felt a great connection to the world presented. The story I enjoyed for what it was. Thought it was well written enough but enough mindless bullcrap to keep the excitement level up. Overall I would rate it very highly and is definitely a step forward in cinema. I take it there's no chance of a sequel?

Duggy747

Finally, I gots ta see it!!

Visually, this film was awesome. The Pandora world felt like it actually existed, the sheer etheral feel too it. It was my frst 3D film too which actually astonished me in a few parts, I felt like shooing away the flies a few times and the little white things that floated around Jake looked like I could actually reach out and touch them. What sealed the deal for me was that Cameron did what he aimed to do in 3D

When the gun ships shot gas cannisters towards the tree and when one came towards the camera I actually flinched

and in creating truly a believable world (those flies again!!) Pandora would make one hell of an awesome David Attenborough series!

2/3rds of the film was fantastic, you actually feel like your learning all these new and bizarre things in the same amusement as Jake

His amazed curiousty towards the plants and animals felt like something I'd do, complete with the stupid laugh.

. But the final 3rd of film became bloated with cheese and the one-dimensional characters became very predictable, though I highly enjoyed the visually specatular war sequence.

Storywise...............meh, seen it a thousand times before but, hey, this wasn't the worst telling of it.

Even though I still find the whole inter-species love quite naff and some of the dialogue really dumb and cheesy

Along with the visuals I have to give hats off to Zoe Saldana, her controlled performance really does make you forget that her character is CGI. Plus the production team were on top form, you will forget it was all done on computers.

Excellent, visually unique film with a big ol' dollop of chedder. I was just worried that I would be disappointed with Cameron's latest offering.....................I bloody well was not! If, like me, you just want to be visually blown away, you'll be hard pressed to find a better looking film than this.

EDIT:

I'm guessing everyone heard the Aliens and Terminator notes in the soundtrack?

Josey Wales

I saw Avatar in the IMAX in London and really, really enjoyed the movie. I was more impressed with the technical aspects of the film than the story but it was still a good movie. It is certainly the best of the 3D movies I've seen in the last couple of years. It was certainly worth the nightmare of a trip to London to see it (over 4 hours on the plane from Dublin to London due to snow, followed by train breakdown from Gatwick).

dblennon

Anyone know which cinemas in dublin are showing avatar in 3D today?

Sleazus

That was pretty bad.

3D and graphics were amaxing - Pandora was fantastic.

But the writing? Argh...

Anyone uncomfortable with

how the Na’vi select their ikran – that flying beast they ride on the back of? They ambush the beasts, find one that they like, wrestle it to the ground, stick an appendage which has been jokingly referred to as a sexual organ into the creature – and Jake even utters an exhausted “You’re mine”.

That was quite unsettling.

Not to mention the whole

"they need a white man to show them how to make effective war" bit

, which makes the film seem almost as racist as the corrupt CEO's "fly-bitten savages" remark.

And the dialogue! He has to take it to a "whole other level". Like, whoa, man.

And the ending?

So they exile mankind

. Do the words

"orbital bombardment"

mean anything to them? Maybe there's a handwave explanation like unobtainium is highly explosive - but they weren't exactly shy in

bombarding that bloody tree right on top of the deposit

. It seems unlikely they'd

give up that easily - particularly if this exile meant a death sentence for earth

.

On the upside, between this and Watchmen, I've had enough blue alien ding dong in my face to last a lifetime.

Elessar

dblennon wrote: »

Anyone know which cinemas in dublin are showing avatar in 3D today?

Most of them.

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

Anyone uncomfortable with

how the Na’vi select their ikran – that flying beast they ride on the back of? They ambush the beasts, find one that they like, wrestle it to the ground, stick an appendage which has been jokingly referred to as a sexual organ into the creature – and Jake even utters an exhausted “You’re mine”.

That was quite unsettling.

Didn't find it unsettling at all.

It is no different to how a Native American might break a mustang and make it its own to ride. Cameron has created a world where instead of the rider and animal moving symbolically as one, on this world, where literal interconnections between the species has evolved out of necessity, the rider and beast literally move as one.

krudler

Not to mention the whole Spoiler: "they need a white man to show them how to make effective war" bit, which makes the film seem almost as racist as the corrupt CEO's "fly-bitten savages" remark.

How is that racist? the fact he's white is irrelevant

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

Didn't find it unsettling at all.

It is no different to how a Native American might break a mustang and make it its own to ride. Cameron has created a world where instead of the rider and animal moving symbolically as one, on this world, where literal interconnections between the species has evolved out of necessity, the rider and beast literally move as one.

I accept that and I can see where Cameron is coming from.

It just seems to become an act of sexual violence rather than Na'vi/Nature bonding because it isn't a whip you use, it's what's effectively your penis ("don't play with that, you'll go blind").

Takes "loving nature" to a whole other level.

Sleazus

krudler wrote: »

How is that racist? the fact he's white is irrelevant

The film is obviously a metaphor for colonialism (both modern and classical), with the "bad guys" all being white (the only members of the ensemble which are not white - the beardy scientist and the fighter pilot with a conscience - get to fight with "the good guys"). I think race is something Cameron should have been more careful with.

Anyway, the basic point is that, despite the fact that Sam speaks about 'having the homefield advantage', the locals are too primitive (a.) to realise this themselves, (b.) formulate a defensive strategy without the blow-in who allowed the slaughter to happen in the first place, (c.) come up this the straight-forward idea of unifying the tribes in the face of this menace. It takes an outsider to come up with the idea of fighting back. If it wasn't for the interference of Sam - a human - they'd all be dead, because they are clearly too primitive to save their own culture.

I don't think the fact that he's white is irrelevent, just as I don't think the fact that the most prominent African characters in District 9 are cannibalistic Nigerian mobsters. I don't think that there was a conscious intent to make the above implication, but it was very careless. And if you're going to make a film about an issue that sensitive, you need to be more careful.

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

It just seems to become an act of sexual violence rather than Na'vi/Nature bonding because it isn't a whip you use, it's what's effectively your penis ("don't play with that, you'll go blind").

Takes "loving nature" to a whole other level.

eh... that's quite a leap...

it's not supposed to be a sexual organ, it's supposed to be a direct connection between the beast and the riders consciousness. What Cameron was symbolizing was the supposed bond a Native American believes it makes with their horse over time, but instead of this process taking time and experience to externally learn the traits of each other, with the Na'vi the syncing of consciousness is instantaneous.

krudler

Sleazus wrote: »

The film is obviously a metaphor for colonialism (both modern and classical), with the "bad guys" all being white (the only members of the ensemble which are not white - the beardy scientist and the fighter pilot with a conscience - get to fight with "the good guys"). I think race is something Cameron should have been more careful with.

Anyway, the basic point is that, despite the fact that Sam speaks about 'having the homefield advantage', the locals are too primitive (a.) to realise this themselves, (b.) formulate a defensive strategy without the blow-in who allowed the slaughter to happen in the first place, (c.) come up this the straight-forward idea of unifying the tribes in the face of this menace. It takes an outsider to come up with the idea of fighting back. If it wasn't for the interference of Sam - a human - they'd all be dead, because they are clearly too primitive to save their own culture.

I don't think the fact that he's white is irrelevent, just as I don't think the fact that the most prominent African characters in District 9 are cannibalistic Nigerian mobsters. I don't think that there was a conscious intent to make the above implication, but it was very careless. And if you're going to make a film about an issue that sensitive, you need to be more careful.

Jake has a working knowledge of the military, you think if America decided to invade a tiny village in the middle of the Amazon who had never seen a military craft the locals would formulate a battle plan? from what? The Na'vi tribes unite against a common enemy use their surroundings to their advantage, the entire thing is a Vietnam allegory, like Aliens before it, if anything the movie is very anti-American, from its foreign policies to pillaging another nations natural resources, military being used for commerce etc etc

Tusky

Ive asked this question a couple of times but havent got an answer so I'll try again!

Is Savoy 1 or Cineworld 17 the best screen to see this on ? Ive seen it on Cineworld 17 but want to see it again, and want it to be the best possible screen.

Can someone who has seen it on Savoy 1 (or both) comment please ? Cheers.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

eh... that's quite a leap...

it's not supposed to be a sexual organ, it's supposed to be a direct connection between the beast and the riders consciousness. What Cameron was symbolizing was the supposed bond a Native American believes it makes with their horse over time, but instead of this process taking time and experience to externally learn the traits of each other, with the Na'vi the syncing of consciousness is instantaneous.

I get that,

but there's a huge difference between a mutual bond which develops over time and simply forcing something to the ground while you kneel on top of it (to hold it down) and insert something that the movie considers to be a sexual organ into it. And I think it definitely is a sexual organ. Lines like "don't play with that, you'll go blind" don't make it into the movie by accident - yes, it was a joke, but it's only funny because it's at least a little bit true (for example, if he'd been playing with the equivalent of his fingernail and she'd said that it wouldn't be a joke, it would just be stupid).

I'm willing to accept that I'm in a minority (probably tiny) on this, but that scene made me more than a little bit uncomfortable.

krudler wrote: »

Jake has a working knowledge of the military, you think if America decided to invade a tiny village in the middle of the Amazon who had never seen a military craft the locals would formulate a battle plan? from what?

Yes, but you give the example of Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn't need a blow-in in order to tell them how to expel the American army from the Northern half of their country. They certainly didn't have anything resembling the technology of the Americans, but they did it themselves.

Cameron has constructed a racial fantasy where

a white man gets to be the hero in a colonial setting - somehow exonerating the legacy of colonial destruction and violence which the movie alludes to

. I just find that a little patronising and disconcerting - Sam can live the life of an oppressed native but can return to his privileged life at any time by "waking up" and not only doesn't participate in the colonisation of these people

but pretty much single-handedly prevents it

. The end notion being that

- in the face of advanced technology - these people can't take care of themselves

. That's a justification, not an apology. That's what disturbs me.

krudler wrote: »

The Na'vi tribes unite against a common enemy use their surroundings to their advantage, the entire thing is a Vietnam allegory, like Aliens before it, if anything the movie is very anti-American, from its foreign policies to pillaging another nations natural resources, military being used for commerce etc etc

I get that it's an allegory and I don't have a problem with that. The problem is how it presents itself.

You point to Aliens as a film that has pretty much the same theory at its core - I think it's a much better example. The aliens singlehandedly eject the invaders, despite their advanced technology.

I just think it would have been a much better film without the patronising Jake Sully character. You can make an argument that he serves a narrative purpose - how could we relate to the blue-skinned people without a recognisable lead? gasp -but he ends up just undermining the movie's core point and seems like an attempt to live out a fantasy where the colonists are not entirely guilty of wiping out indigineous cultures - they aren't culpable for their actions.

speedboatchase

Tusky wrote: »

Ive asked this question a couple of times but havent got an answer so I'll try again!

Is Savoy 1 or Cineworld 17 the best screen to see this on ? Ive seen it on Cineworld 17 but want to see it again, and want it to be the best possible screen.

Can someone who has seen it on Savoy 1 (or both) comment please ? Cheers.

I can't really help but I seen it on Screen 1 in Vue Liffey Valley and no problems whatsoever. I would imagine Cineworld is better though

krudler

Yes, but you give the example of Vietnam. The Vietnamese didn't need a blow-in in order to tell them how to expel the American army from the Northern half of their country. They certainly didn't have anything resembling the technology of the Americans, but they did it themselves.

Well really all Jake does is unite the tribes, the Na'vi themselves and the planets indigenous life is what really destroys the invaders, he uses a few guns and grenades but its the flying creatures who do the most damage to the army, its all a bit Dances With Wolves which had pretty much the same theme

Jako8

Those of you who'd like to know how Avatar was made;

Click Here

Xavi6

Expected big things but came home let down. Decent, but not amazing.

I lolled at

the Na'vi's giant version of 'Rock The Boat' around the sacred tree

Sleazus

krudler wrote: »

Well really all Jake does is unite the tribes, the Na'vi themselves and the planets indigenous life is what really destroys the invaders, he uses a few guns and grenades but its the flying creatures who do the most damage to the army, its all a bit Dances With Wolves which had pretty much the same theme

I honestly don't think the audience is meant

to believe that the Na'vi could have won without Jake

- that itself has unfortunate implications. Sure it was Jake - who despite only spending months in a Na'vi body -

was able to come up with the idea of fusing with the planet to get it on board with the whole "saving the Na'vi" plan

. These people have had their bodies for years and have been fusing with nature for centuries at least, but it takes the American (yes, the actor is Australian, but the character is apparently American) to come up with the idea

of asking the planet for help

.

Yes, I admit it's been done before, but that doesn't really excuse it. Particularly when Cameron sidestepped that problem in an earlier film with the same core message (and a few of the stock characters for good measure).

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

I get that,

but there's a huge difference between a mutual bond which develops over time and simply forcing something to the ground while you kneel on top of it (to hold it down) and insert something that the movie considers to be a sexual organ into it. And I think it definitely is a sexual organ. Lines like "don't play with that, you'll go blind" don't make it into the movie by accident - yes, it was a joke, but it's only funny because it's at least a little bit true (for example, if he'd been playing with the equivalent of his fingernail and she'd said that it wouldn't be a joke, it would just be stupid).

Yes, because that's a human joke...

if they where put into the bodies of Elephants and Jake was playing with his trunk and that joke was made it would be equally funny and relevant, due to the phallic similarities. The Na'vis appendage is a communication device and it is never insinuated that this is used for sexual activity.

CyberGhost

Just came back from Vue in Clondalkin,

I'm immensely disappointed!

First, I watched it in 3D, this was my first 3D movie, I don't know if this is normal or not but I could not catch a proper focus, everything was confusing, moving too fast and blurry, when scenes slowed down only then I could see the effect, the human base scenes are the ones I enjoyed the most cause I could see them.


Then the story, I never considered myself to be a big critic of movies, I usually just watch them and take them for what they are.... but man this story was CHEESE! I feel like I came out 5Kg heavier from the cinema. The story itself is done many many times before, I knew that and I was OK with it, but the delivery in this movie, it was just cheese worthy of a guiness record. The beginning also felt super rushed.


The movie was boring, 75% of it I found to be totally boring, in fact I'm usually anal about sounds in the cinema because they take me out of the experience, yet there was a child crying, people coughing and I found that more interesting than the movie, only the last battle was good, and even then there were better battles done in movies, I was constantly left with an unfinished, unsatisfyed feeling from scirimishes, everything was cut too fast too soon, the chases too.


The world, pandora, I didn't like it at all, first the creatures looked really idiotic, they all looked like plastic and a mix of different animals we have mixed with bugs and Leonardo Davinchi's flying machine. The sounds were used from other movies, there was a T-Rex sound from Jurassic park that I recognized, King Kong sound. If you like fantasy creatures that look like they'd fall over constantly in a real world, you'll like these.

The night scenes were horrible, it was boy racer's heaven, neons everywhere, Cameron threw up neons all over you, I dreaded the nights and was constantly waiting for a day scene again. Especially in 3D I found it annoying.

And I think one of the biggest failures of Cameron with Pandora was that he IMO failed to grab the sense of scale of things, we never got a good look at Pandona, first they show a planet from the orbit... it looks like a ball(duh) then we are suddenly in some forrest who knows where, also they never displayed how far the base was from the natives, it was never shown properly for you to get an idea. There were no fly over scenes done to truly give you a perspective of how big this planet is. They showed some big rocks but I never truly got that breath taking feeling of scale, like "wow, that world is HUGE!" every nature scene was just "packed" too much with too many things.
You never got that look of a seemingly endless horizon, there were also oceans it looks like but all they show you are the shores of it. When they are flying those "birds" they could've used that moment to zoom out a bit and display some scale, yet they focused strictly on the smurfs.

They never showed the earth either.



Characters, the acting was pretty good from all actors.

The movie was supposed to make me hate the evil, greedy, colonizing humans but I didn't at all, I liked the Colonel the most, he was a cool guy.

Sully's girlfriend pissed me off at times with her sudden emotional outbursts and screaming.

The CGI looked good and actually believable for the most part.



Still....James, son, I'm disapoint.


I enjoyed District 9 much more.

seraphimvc

absolutely brilliant movie - we have always forgetten CGI(or fusion technology whatever they call it they are still CG) is made to bring more entertainment/joy/dreams to us audiences. and the man made it. goodjob Cameron!!

Outkast_IRE

Went to 3d version in mahon point last night .
Was very impressed with visual aspect it was a magnificent film to watch.
Story wise it was solid and enjoyable , its honestly the most entertaining film iv watched this year .

Anyone else feel that it wont translate to the small screen as good ?

Cupcake_Crisis

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Went to 3d version in mahon point last night .
Was very impressed with visual aspect it was a magnificent film to watch.
Story wise it was solid and enjoyable , its honestly the most entertaining film iv watched this year .

Anyone else feel that it wont translate to the small screen as good ?

I was just discussing that with a friend. We both think that what made the movie so good was the sheer scale of everything, and the detail you could see. It will still look pretty on a smaller screen id say, but nowhere near as good as in the cinema

Tar.Aldarion

I can barely watch it in 2d! it was all about teh awesomeness of the 3d and prettiness

Duggy747

Hell, I was impressed visually. I'm a fierce critic but the production on this was A+.

D- for the naff plot and dialogue, though it wasn't the worst telling.

BlitzKrieg

i say they'll try and sell the dvd version on it being an extended cut of the film which might give some of the characters some depth.

PirateShampoo

Went to see it the other night in Cineworld, i loved it.

The opening scene was pure awesomeness, i was blown away by the 3D. I probably could of watched this without the sound, and the 3d made the holographic dispalys look unreal.

So the film was a bit chessy, but i didnt mind i really enjoyed it.



Off topic, i cant wait for Shrek 3D and Alice 3D, they both look pretty good.