Avatar Superthread

CyberGhost

So I guess I'm the only one that found 3D annoying, very blurry, mushy and hard to focus on?

Mossy Monk

Nice to look at but very dull story.

Basq

Just back from it about an half hour ago.

Let's cut straight to the point - it was visually stunning and the battle sequences were hugely enjoyable but to be honest, there was massive gaps on Pandora where I was bored senseless, the characters were paper-thin, the performances were patchy and majority of the dialogue was horrific!

If you want to see impressive battle sequences and real effective use of 3D cinema, you'll love it.

I can't understand people claiming it's one of the best movies of the last year or last few years, it's visually stunning but I'd implore those same people to see it in 2D and see if they feel the same.

I'd give it a 7/10 for superb visuals and battle sequences.. but everything else really let it down.

A-Trak

Avoided the reviews, avoided the trailers, avoided the hype avoided this thread.:p

Not so as to avoid "spoiling" the content / suprise more the accident by design to be honest.

Bloody hell, I was transfixed from start to finish. As a spectacle I've yet to see any work of fiction to match it. Lost count the amount of times I said wow.

As a visual spectacle, in my opinion it was breathtaking.

DinnyBatman

basquille wrote: »

I'd give it a 7/10 for superb visuals and battle sequences.. but everything else really let it down.

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?
The film was visually incredible. Storyline was as expected. I came out of the cinema a damn sight happier than say 2012.

L31mr0d

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?

Well I think he's saying that it gets 7/10 for visuals and battle sequences but loses 3 points for lack of character development and plot.

I mean I can see where he's coming from. I mean just look at E.T., predictable plot, 1 dimensional characters and what do we really learn about the Aliens, not a whole damn lot tbh, where was the character development and depth?

Same with Jurassic Park, I mean the characters are really just there to take us on a guided tour around some neat visual spectacles... and the plot.. pff... millionaire tries to play god and fails miserably... that's original :rolleyes:

I agree, E.T, Jurassic Park and Avatar all 7/10 films because of the paper thin plots and character depth.

cats.pyjamas

The 3D was amazing ! story was beyond soppy though , which was disappointing. Was I the only one who thought it could have been called "Pocahontas! (except not Native American) Live Action Movie!" It was basically the same story line except they never attacked grandmother willow in Pocahontas (but I'm sure they would have eventually)

BlitzKrieg

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?
The film was visually incredible. Storyline was as expected. I came out of the cinema a damn sight happier than say 2012.

no he meant it got 7/10 overall because it looked pretty. not 7/10 just for visuals.

BlitzKrieg

Same with Jurassic Park, I mean the characters are really just there to take us on a guided tour around some neat visual spectacles... and the plot.. pff... millionaire tries to play god and fails miserably... that's original

I'm sorry but the characters in jurassic park got alot more development then the characters in avatar. To contrast the big rich billionaire vs the corporate man. In Jurrasic Park the big rich millionaires ethics were questioned and he actually at one point in the film

tried to justify it by comparing the park to a flea circus, and his desire to have something real that he could touch.

And at the end of the film he had developed to change his position on the whole issue/ In contrast the corporate mean did what? He justified it by pointing out the piece of rock was worth millions, despite everything that was said to him in the events of the film, did he change his position? No, we get two passing shots of him doing nothing for the rest of the film after the big tree scene, no development.


And a better question about avatar

Why should we care about the chief when he died? We had a big scene of him dying and passing on his bow to his daughter, why should we as an audience morn his passing, what aside from being *the chief* can we say about his character? Was he a good chief? We dont know, was he a caring father? We dont know. We never even saw him talk to his daughter aside from his introduction. We cared more when her banshee died because they had earlier in the film established their connection and developed it.

Rowley Birkin QC

Just back from seeing it in the coolest cinema I've ever been in, the Pathé Tuschinski in Amsterdam, absolutely blown away. Both my girlfriend and myself commented that it brought back the same sort of awe that came the first time you went to the cinema as a child, which is something I've been waiting for a film to deliver on for a while now.

10/10

Ri_Nollaig

Saw it today.
Second film Ive seen in 3D (first was Up)

The Visuals and use of 3D was unbelievable good.
But other then that it was pretty crap, bit too long and does any one else find it odd that he basically wanted to do a like ~9 foot tall alien? that really is going native

Still nothing on Terminator 1/2 and Aliens for me but overall there is certainly worse ways to spend 2 and half hours.

DinnyBatman

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

no he meant it got 7/10 overall because it looked pretty. not 7/10 just for visuals.

oops. but i'm a shallow f*cker - pretty is everything!;)

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm sorry but the characters in jurassic park got alot more development then the characters in avatar.

My point is that if you want to be cynical you can boil down any movie to being clichéd with limited character development, compared to the book I think the characters in Jurassic Park where horribly distorted and underdeveloped. The traits of Hammond in the book are far less idealistic and more realistic.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And a better question about avatar

Why should we care about the chief when he died?

It's not really about caring when the

chief dies

. It's about the Na'vi as a people. In Schindlers list when

we see the red jacket of the jewish girl on a body in the back of a truck

, the symbol is more important than what we got to learn about this girl as a character.

The chiefs death, coupled with the falling of the tree was representative of what was happening to the Na'vi as a people. How their situation was apparently hopeless.

BlitzKrieg

L31mr0d wrote: »

My point is that if you want to be cynical you can boil down any movie to being clichéd with limited character development,

I would say the issue with Avatar is not so much that they are cliched it is that they are horrible underdeveloped as characters full stop. You can have a character that is cliched but a bit of development can allow any cinema goer overlook it easily. That is the core issue with Avatar we got cliched characters and were not given anything to look past that cliche.

compared to the book I think the characters in Jurassic Park where horribly distorted and underdeveloped. The traits of Hammond in the book are far less idealistic and more realistic.

I've read the book and I know the difference between them, but I wouldnt call Hammond in the film underdeveloped, I would blatantly say he is a completely different character to the one in the book so much so that they were able to springboard the plot of the 2nd film in a completely different direction just on how they changed his character over how the book actually played out (for the record I liked leonard in the book and was disapointed when he wasnt in the film.)

It's not really about caring when the

chief dies

. It's about the Na'vi as a people. In Schindlers list when

we see the red jacket of the jewish girl on a body in the back of a truck

, the symbol is more important than what we got to learn about this girl as a character.

The chiefs death, coupled with the falling of the tree was representative of what was happening to the Na'vi as a people. How their situation was apparently hopeless.

Hmm if thats what you think the specific scene with the chief meant fine. Personnally I thought it was too melodramatic and focused on the daughter crying over her father to be merely a symbol for the Na'vi being crushed. But thats what I saw in that scene and you saw something different.

B0X

Avatar's really shallow, the whole thing is just seemed like a means to show special effects. Yes they are amazing, but the plot and characters are what makes a film, both of which in this case are clichéd and predictable.
6/10

mdwexford

What was the last action movie any of you saw that wasnt predictable out of interest??

I for one didnt want in depth character development going on, if i wanted that id stay home and watch The Wire or something.

Ri_Nollaig

B0X wrote: »

Avatar's really shallow, the whole thing is just seemed like a means to show special effects. Yes they are amazing, but the plot and characters are what makes a film, both of which in this case are clichéd and predictable.
6/10

you know I was thinking about this afterwards.
Do you think James Cameron just wanted to make the alien rain forest and strange creatures in 3D CGI and then just wrapped the story around this...
Seems to kinda mirror how games were made back in the day, game made using the limit of the technology and a storyline was tided into what they could.

Its currently 25 on imdb top 250...
I am wondering are those who are voting it 10/10 the same who say films like transformers are crap as they are just about explosions and special effects?

nyarlothothep

It was a good film but not a great film. The plot was cliched from the outset, but I thought the character development was reasonably alright compared to other hollywood blockbusters. Certainly not to an aliens standard but nonetheleses there was some character depth involved. It reminded me of sci fi space opera novels and it was nice to see something like this on the big screen given that its unusual amid all the fantasy films. The fx were without a doubt excellent. 7/10.

BlitzKrieg

What was the last action movie any of you saw that wasnt predictable out of interest??

*cough*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3P63pv2C0

Basq

DinnyBatman wrote: »

Sweet Jaysus, what does a director have to do to get a 10/10 for "visuals"?

You misunderstood!

L31mr0d wrote: »

Well I think he's saying that it gets 7/10 for visuals and battle sequences but loses 3 points for lack of character development and plot.

Spot on L31mr0d!

On a visual scale, the film can't not get 10/10. But it'd be daft to award it 10/10 considering the numerous problems I had with the film - but on a visual scale, it's unrivalled!

Outkast_IRE

If the dvd edition brings some much needed charecter development scenes then i will be a very happy man .
Honestly loved the film but didnt care much for some of the charecters just cause of lack of development prob due to time constrictions .
A few extra scenes to help us associate with charecters would do this films wonders . Im sure carmeron has plently of footage left over for the inevitable extended cut.:D

FutureGuy

Super film from start to finish. Went to see it with my gf, my brother and his mate. We all have widely varying tastes in fims, but we all loved it.

The 3-D was astounding, but if it's your first 3-D film you may find it takes 10-15 minutes to get used to it. In fairness, there is only so much character building that you can do in the opening hour, but I had plenty concern for

the Na'vi as a species.

.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*

What exactly was original about the Dark Knight? It's an archetypal hero story mixed with nods to unoriginal game theory.

Now my point is, the Dark Knight is still a great film, even though the plot is not original. E.T is still a great film even though the character development is limited. Jurassic Park is still a great film even though a lot of the characters are ancillary to the Dinosaurs.

It is possible for a film to have a fairly weak plot and limited character development and still be a 10/10 film. Take "Duel" for example, it would be a 10/10 film even though the plot is non-existent and the character development is minimal, but as an exercise in creating tension and mystery and holding it it is perfect for the entirety.

It is possible for Avatar to have a common plot (show me a film that isn't influenced by any archetypes) weak ancillary characters and still be a 10/10 film purely on the back of the technical and visual achievement alone.

It's like for video games dropping the score of a racing game because it has no story, it would be stupid.

Personally as a Romeo and Juliet/Underdog story I thought Avatar did quite well and the characters I was meant to care about, Jake and Neytiri, I did by the end of the film. But above all else the overwhelming brilliance of the visuals put this film for me up in the top tier of films I've ever watched.

Sleazus

L31mr0d wrote: »

What exactly was original about the Dark Knight? It's an archetypal hero story mixed with nods to unoriginal game theory.

But it's not. It's the first blockbuster to offer a deconstruction of the myth of the superhero. The story is anything but archetypal hero story.

That's not an original idea of itself, but it's the first time the idea was transitioned to film.

I agree that a movie doesn't have to be original to be good - there's nothing original about Heat or Platoon, for example - but it still has to be, fundamentally, a good story well told (with more emphasis on the last part - I don't care if it's the story of paint drying so long as it's interestingly put together).

Otacon

Sleazus wrote: »

...but it still has to be, fundamentally, a good story well told (with more emphasis on the last part - I don't care if it's the story of paint drying so long as it's interestingly put together).

I thought the pacing and scene selections were concise, with good acting enhancing it. The passage of time was conveyed very well, you understood the motivations of each character [except arguably Michelle Rodriguez's character].

What about Avatar's story is not well told?

Galvasean

I know it's getting a lot of flak for it's 'done before' storyline, but when dealing witha project which costed $300 million I can see why they went for a tried and tested formla. If the storyline was too 'out there' it might have alienated a large chunk of the audience (because lets face it, the vast majority of people went for the eye candy, not the story). If it was unusial and potentially confusing Mr. Joe Soap Public might have been put off. When a film costs that much to make you can't afford to take any unneccessary gambles.
Take a storyline that you know works, make it beautiful and get a nice return on investment. That's how blockbusters work.

L31mr0d

Sleazus wrote: »

But it's not. It's the first blockbuster to offer a deconstruction of the myth of the superhero. The story is anything but archetypal hero story.

In what way? I guarantee you whatever aspect you think is not archetypal about the Dark Knight I will be able to find it's mirror in an equivalent hero story from the past decade or so. Hero stories are all the same, they have to be for the audience to believe them.

mdwexford

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*cough*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g3P63pv2C0

Serious??

Hmm guess i was the only genius to figure out Batman would save the day and all would be hunky dory in Gotham in the end.

Mark Hamill

Saw this last night with some of my family and when asked what I thought about it I said

"Too much Titanic, not enough Abyss". It wasn't actually the love aspect of the storyline that bothered me that much (it fit quite well as the driving force actually), but the overall sentimentality it tried to envoke for its enviromental message.
I think that Cameron made a mess of the envirmental message he was trying to get across by constantly trying to bring everything back to a "hippy tree hugging" meaning with life forces and ignoring the fact that Weavers character actually scientifically explained the connection between the lif on the planet (that the "trees" weren't exactly trees, that they had bio-electronic interactions on a order higher than the human brain).
I think that by ignoring the innocent scientific wonder aspect (what was done well in The Abyss) and focussing on the spiritual, magical, hippy meaning he will alienate people who either aren't already "in love" with their planet or dont flip-flop on issues based on the last piece of propaganda they read or saw.
I think Cameron made a real mess of the message at the end when Worthingtons character started refereing to the humans as "aliens returning to their dead planet". It does work for his characterisation (he sees himself as the one of The People, but it pretty much implies that humans are doomed to killing their planet unless they stop being humans.

RoyalMarine

saw it last night. loved it.

cant say anymore than that