Avatar Superthread

Sleazus

ScumLord wrote: »

Again it's all relevant it's the same as the US going into Iraq to secure that oil. It's not a cliché it's a real scenario thats being played out as we speak.

Except it's not.

Nothing is as simple as that film makes it out to be. One dimensional people simply don't exist. It doesn't matter whether they are military generals taking an action you don't condone, pedophiles abusing children, serial killers with strange fetishes, a parent walking their child to school or a tree-hugging film director with the largest budget ever - there's a huge amount of complexity there. A good film brings that to the fore - or at least hints at it.

Just because you're perfectly happy to believe that something you dislike is simple, doesn't make it so.

An oil-hungry general isn't necessarily a cliché - as an unobtanium-hungry general isn't. If the film bothered to put layers on the role and turn it into an actual character, it would transcend that. Does he believe what he's doing is right? If he doesn't, does he believe it's necessary? If he doesn't, is he smply comfortable with his place in a giant military-industrial complex or is he impotent against it? Instead we got "isn't he a vindictive badass?" for nearly three hours.

Unfortunately, in this case it is a cliché. I don't have a political problem with the "greed is bad" message - I just find it stale when delivered alongside a disturbing race fantasy and the worst script I've seen in quite sometime (I'm including Transformers 2 in there).

Galvasean

Bajingo wrote: »

I was taking in by the surrounding and I was amazed by the diversity of the wildlife that was imagined in this movie..from plant to animal..

I loved the sounds the 'dogs' made when they attacked jake..their hunting cries

..it sounded so real..

..just amazing

I coukd be mistaken, but I think they dropped in hyaena noises for that scene. I also noticed a few sound effects plucked from Jurassic Park (I would! ). The 'horses' make the raptor 'help' call while that large predator

encountered at the start (and also appears again for the final showdown)

definately made a few T.rex noises.

Seen this last night in 3D.. Unbelievable. Definately the most entertaining movie I've ever seen in a cinema or ever for that matter.

Will be going again before the end of the month.. Cameron does a brilliant job of immersing us completely into the world and culture of the Na'vi.

Up there with City of God, Pulp Fiction and In Bruges as my fav movies.

noodle650

Saw it on sunday evening in the Balincollig cinema in 3-D, best CGi ive ever seen in my life, they finally got the eyes perfect!!!, with the ending does anyone sense a sequel?

Yea, I think there's a sequel.. Someone told me that anyway.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea, I think there's a sequel.. Someone told me that anyway.

plans for 2 more if this was successful, clearly it has been

sadhbhc15

I really enjoyed this film, yes weak dialogue but I disagree with those who said the storyline was weak. I really felt for the characters - their eyes were so soulful it was incredible. Such a passionate film. And the battle scenes - WOW :eek:. I'll definitely go and see this again soon.

KerranJast

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

plans for 2 more if this was successful, clearly it has been

Yeah Worthington & Saldana are contracted for two more anyway. Don't know what form it'll take though.

It'd be interesting to see a human civil war over Pandora.

The Corporate interests wanting to raze the planet completely after the attack by the Na'vi and more progressive humans (the legitimate military *cough*Starfleet*cough*) wanting to protect the planet. A planet of interconnected flora and fauna is much more valuable that some rare mineral IMO. Imagine how they could regenerate the Earth by bringing back samples from Pandora.

That angle would also allow more space action and a look at what the Earth has become.

speedboatchase

I think there will be a sequel but Cameron wants to do The Dive next year (a relatively low-budget true story about two freedivers), has apparently signed to do a remake of Fantastic Voyage and there's that Battle Angel Alita project which he seems to be trying to dispel recently.

As for the sequel, here's the two different visions I've heard:

Producer Jon Landau http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/09/29/jon-landau-teases-what-we-might-see-in-the-avatar-sequel/ :

"If the public likes Avatar, it's a possibility. After all, here we are exploring the surface of the planet Pandora. The interior remains to be seen."

Cameron himself http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/12/james-cameron-talks-avatar-sequel-.html :

Beyond Pandora: James Cameron may visit other moons in an 'Avatar' sequel

missingtime

It felt kinda like watching Jurassic Park for the first time in the cinema. I know the story is very disney and the hair tentacle thing is retarded but Christ I really enjoyed myself.

Towards the end I nearly shouted "Get the ****ers"

Gonna see it again soon.

opinion guy

missingtime wrote: »

the hair tentacle thing is retarded

Was I the only one who thought std's must be rife on that planet ???? I mean swine flu is one thing - what would oyu have if you went plugging your nervous system into every animal or tree you bumped into ?

krudler

opinion guy wrote: »

Was I the only one who thought std's must be rife on that planet ???? I mean swine flu is one thing - what would oyu have if you went plugging your nervous system into every animal or tree you bumped into ?

I doubt aliens get the clap

opinion guy

krudler wrote: »

I doubt aliens get the clap

Well not human clap no, but I was thinking alien clap

redorblack

noodle650 wrote: »

Saw it on sunday evening in the Balincollig cinema in 3-D, best CGi ive ever seen in my life, they finally got the eyes perfect!!!, with the ending does anyone sense a sequel?

Its not CGI its motion capture, big difference.

rushnaldo

Going to see this. Would anyone recommend the 3d or normal one which is better just in general?

opinion guy

3D 3D 3D !!!!!!!
Unbelieveable!!!!
I haven't seen the 2D

SoupyNorman

I did not have any high hopes for this movie after seeing the trailer and unfortunately the trailer was an accurate reflection of the entire movie.

It was utterly abysmal from beginning to end I'm actually more shocked now that it's had 24hours to sink in.

The first alarm bell was the narration, narration at the start of a movie is rarely a good sign, getting the ball rolling for the audience then some dialog then some more narration to move things forward, all done terribly mind.

I thought it looked great but I just got the overall feeling that the audience was being bombarded with graphics, new and exotic creatures, planets etc to draw away your attention from the most unoriginal screenplay I've seen in a long time, it seriously felt like a cross between a Disney movie and StarWars:Attack of the Clones...It reeked of Jar Jar Binks, once I made that connection in my head it was a lost cause.

The 3D was insanely bad, I didnt see why it was needed.

The main, 'getting accepted into the tribe dialog' was just cringeworthy. I got flashbacks to The Lion King where the little one grows into a big oul lion to a Caribbean backing track(I actually played that tune in my head when those shocking scenes were playing out and the tune fit in perfectly)

It felt like a glorified storyline from an 80's cartoon where there is an underlying moral.

Overall:

Terribly written
Badly cast
Badly acted
Well made

Ri_Nollaig

SoupyNorman wrote: »

The 3D was insanely bad, I didnt see why it was needed.

ah now, the 3D effect was good.

speedboatchase

Apparently there was a lot more shades of grey between the characters in the original scriptment. I think the lack of originality in the script is probably indicative of Fox wanting the storyline to be told as straightforward as possible before signing off $300m for a film with no predecessors or existing properties, which is understandable

3D was laughably bad though... really? Sure the film had problems but (and I really don't mean this condescendingly) I actually feel bad for people that didn't come away with movie blown away by the effects, I really felt like it was a moment in time and similar to seeing Jurassic Park for the first time

Badly acted? Zoe Saldana was incredible

opinion guy

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I did not have any high hopes for this movie after seeing the trailer and unfortunately the trailer was an accurate reflection of the entire movie.

It was utterly abysmal from beginning to end I'm actually more shocked now that it's had 24hours to sink in.

The first alarm bell was the narration, narration at the start of a movie is rarely a good sign, getting the ball rolling for the audience then some dialog then some more narration to move things forward, all done terribly mind.

I thought it looked great but I just got the overall feeling that the audience was being bombarded with graphics, new and exotic creatures, planets etc to draw away your attention from the most unoriginal screenplay I've seen in a long time, it seriously felt like a cross between a Disney movie and StarWars:Attack of the Clones...It reeked of Jar Jar Binks, once I made that connection in my head it was a lost cause.

The 3D was insanely bad, I didnt see why it was needed.

The main, 'getting accepted into the tribe dialog' was just cringeworthy. I got flashbacks to The Lion King where the little one grows into a big oul lion to a Caribbean backing track(I actually played that tune in my head when those shocking scenes were playing out and the tune fit in perfectly)

It felt like a glorified storyline from an 80's cartoon where there is an underlying moral.

Overall:

Terribly written
Badly cast
Badly acted
Well made

To be honest you sound like you set out not to enjoy yourself what with playing tunes from movies you didn't like in your head. And why is 3D needed in any movie ?

lol - there was a touch of Captain Planet thou - but that doesn't take away from IMHO

SoupyNorman

speedboatchase wrote: »

Apparently there was a lot more shades of grey between the characters in the original scriptment. I think the lack of originality in the script is probably indicative of Fox wanting the storyline to be told as straightforward as possible before signing off $300m for a film with no predecessors or existing properties, which is understandable

3D was laughably bad though... really? Sure the film had problems but (and I really don't mean this condescendingly) I actually feel bad for people that didn't come away with movie blown away by the effects, I really felt like it was a moment in time and similar to seeing Jurassic Park for the first time

Badly acted? Zoe Saldana was incredible

The 3D added nothing as it was not mind blowing 3D (I remember seeing Monster House in 3D in 2006 and I was diving behing the seat)
I took the glasses off for the non-3D scenes and found it much more visually stimulating, the colours were not as vibrant with the 3D.

In absolutely no way does the movie warrant a mind-blowing status, like I said there was zero groundbreaking attributes. A CGI fest is all, the best CGI is when you dont even notice it implemented.

Sigourney Weaver- woeful, found it tough to watch her.

Stephen Lang- No real complaints, his brainded character was on the same level of the intelligence of the script.

Michelle Rodriguez- She'd make Arnie blush with the over used action one liners....frickin hawt though

Giovanni Ribisi- Surprisingly bad, his character was very weak (was he supposed to be a bad guy or what??

"No Negotiation!, no wait 1hour"...."Shoot the Tree down, no wait pull back"

)

Joel Moore- This guy didnt seem to be needed.

I get the feeling there was a real case of nobody telling Cameron no and thus produced the runaway crap train. Maybe he didnt have much say in the script but in all fairness the script comes 1st no question, feck that up and all the CGI this side of xmas wont save the movie.

People cant fathom why I dont like it, they were seduced by the pretty colours and the flippant story but I'm not falling for it....If this is what we can expect off Cameron in the future then he should go back into the quiet notoriety status he had pre Avatar.

SoupyNorman

SoupyNorman wrote: »

The 3D added nothing as it was not mind blowing 3D (I remember seeing Monster House in 3D in 2006 and I was diving behing the seat)
I took the glasses off for the non-3D scenes and found it much more visually stimulating, the colours were not as vibrant with the 3D.

Avatar is a different type of 3D, Cameron uses the technology to give depth to the image where as most directors simply use it as a cheap gimmick.

SoupyNorman wrote: »

In absolutely no way does the movie warrant a mind-blowing status, like I said there was zero groundbreaking attributes. A CGI fest is all, the best CGI is when you dont even notice it implemented.

Which is exactly what Avatar does. You could spend hours re-watching scenes and still not know what was real and what was computer generated. The floating mountains and much of the planet could have been lifter from a David Attenborough documentary.
Sigourney Weaver- woeful, found it tough to watch her.

SoupyNorman

Deleted User wrote: »

Avatar is a different type of 3D, Cameron uses the technology to give depth to the image where as most directors simply use it as a cheap gimmick.

I can appreciate that but it's only truly apparent in a handful of scenes, like I said the non-3D frames looked amazing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is exactly what Avatar does. You could spend hours re-watching scenes and still not know what was real and what was computer generated. The floating mountains and much of the planet could have been lifter from a David Attenborough documentary.

It certainly does do that, it also does not. And the majority of the time its the latter, every scene with the nav'i is almost cartoon like. It's very much like a more polished version of Attack of The Clones in some scenes.

I'm really lost for words as to the over whelming positive feeling towards this movie, I think people were sucked in by the pretty colours.

opinion guy

SoupyNorman wrote: »

I took the glasses off for the non-3D scenes and found it much more visually stimulating, the colours were not as vibrant with the 3D.

What non3D scenes ?

Giovanni Ribisi- Surprisingly bad, his character was very weak (was he supposed to be a bad guy or what??

"No Negotiation!, no wait 1hour"...."Shoot the Tree down, no wait pull back"

)

See now you have to pay more attention if you want to enjoy something

he didn't say shoot the tree down, no wait pull back - he said pull the plug - as in pull the plug on the avatar pods - he didn't change his mind

seriously if you are going to criticise the script fair enough, but at least pay enough attention to get it right

SoupyNorman

opinion guy wrote: »

What non3D scenes ?

Many scenes were non3D, if you were not wearing glasses you'd notice.

opinion guy wrote: »

See now you have to pay more attention if you want to enjoy something

he didn't say shoot the tree down, no wait pull back - he said pull the plug - as in pull the plug on the avatar pods - he didn't change his mind

seriously if you are going to criticise the script fair enough, but at least pay enough attention to get it right

Yes, correct, apologies. However I still stand by my opinion of his performance (possibly attributed to the script).


In fact, I think all the problems stem from the script.

L31mr0d

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Many scenes were non3D, if you were not wearing glasses you'd notice.

The whole film is in 3D Every single scene has visual cues to add depth and a sense of space to the scene. If you mean that not every scene uses cheap 3D gimmicks where people throw items at the camera then yes, gimmicky 3D was rarely used.

opinion guy

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Many scenes were non3D, if you were not wearing glasses you'd notice.

Well I had glasses on the whole time and saw 3d stuff all the time. Subtle mind - I only had one moment where I ducked But i did try taking them off at one point and noticed that the image was pretty crisp, surprisingly so - apparently the crispness or lack thereof depends on how 'deep' the 3d image is. so probably the scenes you are talking about had only minimal 3d as opposed to no 3d.

As to the colour brightness. The polarising lenses in the glasses cut 50% of the light intensity - there's just no getting around that - same as any 3d film using polarising lenses (hmm if you want to see something cool look into the mirror wearing the glasses:D)

Sleazus

speedboatchase wrote: »

Apparently there was a lot more shades of grey between the characters in the original scriptment. I think the lack of originality in the script is probably indicative of Fox wanting the storyline to be told as straightforward as possible before signing off $300m for a film with no predecessors or existing properties, which is understandable

Even if that excuses the storyline (which I'm not sure of - there are dozens of well-told conventional studio-friendly stories - look at terminator 2, a previous record holder for "most expensive movie ever") it doesn't excuse the dialogue or the lack of characterisation.

And I don't believe that if Cameron really felt strongly about something that Fox would put up a fight (unless it affected the age rating of the film, which is the only thing that could affect box office on a project as big as this). I mean "giant blue hairless cats" should have been the toughest part of that pitch.

irish_bob

saw the movie today , 1st time to ever watch a 3D movie and it will most certainly be the last , dont like the concept , gave me a headache which i still have , warning to anyone who is prone to headaches , if you take off the glasses at a 3D movie , its even worse , blurrey , you simply have to put the glasses back on

as for the movie , i was a little disapointed overall , from reading this thread and listening to reviews by dave fanning , jonathan ross and even reading roger eberts website review , hopes were very high

the movie looks gorgeous and the navi are a beautifull people , the charechter which jake falls in love with was wonderfull and the romance between them not at all contrived but i thought the movie was fairly unoriginal , it obviously borrows from dances with wolves but you can also add on the matrix , emerald forrest , pochohantas, transformers and even aliens with that ( get away from her you bitch ) big suit they wear , it also had more political messages than any movie i may have ever seen which although accurate and very contemporary were again , hardly imaginative , the lead actor is not really much of an actor and his call to arms and speech making was hardly william wallace with a tail , overall i would give the movie 7 out of 10

CivilServant

Normally your vision focuses on any object you want, but with the new 3D, there is only one distance that's in focus and you should focus on that lest you be on a receiving end of a headache. So that would generally be the characters that are speaking and the actions scenes.