Avatar Superthread

BlitzKrieg · 21-12-2009 05:15PM

mdwexford wrote: »

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.

ughhh...

I take it you havnt seen the film.

Anyone who would think the ending was "all hunky dory in gotham* must have fallen asleep in the last 10 minutes.

just to remind you

it ends with batman taking the fall for the murders by two face and becoming a fugitive, thus changing the entire dynamic that had been established in the film already

That is not a cliched and predictable ending. It didnt end with batman saving the day and the world cheering and having a happily ever after, its actually quite a tragic ending

with the death of harvey dent

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.

Now let me make one thing clear on my position, I have no problem with a common plot, I've said that many times already, my problem is with the very weak characters. not sort of weak but insanely paper thin weak characters.

To steal a test from another thread/review there is a 70 minute review of the phantom menace posted up 2 nights ago and early into it the reviewer does a test about the characters. He asked people to describe characters in phantom menace without describing what they do or the title of their job.

THAT IS AVATAR IN A NUTSHELL. It is very difficult to squeeze anymore detail out of the majority of the cast aside from that. As I already stated I have very few issues with Sully as a character...he worked but because there is such an extensive supporting cast their weaknessess become the film's weakness. The difference between AVATAR and DUEL is because one had a large cast and the other had a very small cast. Duel can and was be carried on one detailed character. Avatar cannot, to balance out the film's narrative you needed more from the cast around the leads. As much as people b*tch about Titanic, that it got right, despite Rose and Jack being the leads, the extended cast around them had enough development to them that it held up the extended cast.

I watched a review of it by the spoony one earlier today and he hated much more then me that I felt was unfair, but it did remind me why I think the lack of character development on a large cast is so damaging. The film is getting alot of grief in the media for its preachy enviromentalist message but the thing is Cameron always has preachy messages in his films (see extended edition of The Abyss) but he has for the most part covered that preachyness by having decent characters, the abyss the preachiness is not that big of an issue because we liked the characters and was wrapped up in their problems within a closed enviroment, when it opened up to include the whole world in this *repent or die* moment it irked people but it was looked over because we had alot of emotion invested in the characters in the previous 2 hours and we want them to turn out fine.

Sleazus · 21-12-2009 06:06PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

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.

That is the difference, find me a dramatic deconstruction of the superhero genre in blockbuster cinema that predates The Dark Knight - so Watchmen and Kick-Ass don't count.

Otacon wrote: »

What about Avatar's story is not well told?

At the risk of going over old ground, I was less-than-impressed with the (lack of) characterisation and the awful dialogue, but I was more than a little uncomfortable at the implicit racial aspect of the movie. A white man

leads a tribe of "noble savages" to salvation

, while experiencing their life (though don't worry, he can still return to his privileged life at any point - making the lifestyle his choice).

It just gives the impression that nothing but superficial thought went into the story - but it also seems disconcertingly like a white man's fantasy or historical revisionism. By

fighting with the Na'vi

, Jake is implicitly washed clean of the history of oppression and genocide that founded the character's home of America (and other states) - but he also gets to be a hero to these otherwise victims, rather than an implicit (rather than active) oppressor. The film would have been much more fascinating without Jake, Cameron has had primitive aliens trump advanced humans before (in Aliens) - so why not here?

johnny_ultimate · 21-12-2009 07:26PM

Just back from this, and as a technical achievement it was astonishing - constantly impressive for the first hour or so, in particular the nighttime sequences (with every touch causing wonderful illumination). Every cent of that 300 million is on screen.

But as a film, I'm not so sure. I think the characters annoyed me most. I disliked Sam Worthington for most of the film, just not a likable lead. The army general and his minions (i.e. the guy who says "Get Some") were ridiculous - bad guys without an ounce of credibility. The ideology behind the action made it hard to agree on occasion with the Na'vi (in particular the religious element) and even the valid points (environmental mostly) are damaged by heavy handed delivery.

Of course, this is primarily popcorn stuff, and I did very much enjoy the film for the most part - the basic coming of age story was simple, light and enjoyable, and I liked the dual personality ideas suggested by Avatars. However, I also thought the love story was very weak, especially when coupled with weak characterisation. Even the action climax was dull IMO - by the end I was spotting physics mistakes

(surely the bombs would have fallen out of the dropship as it spiralled out of control?)

. And the mech suit business was another irritating action cliche - same problem I found with District 9. There is an appeal on occassion to cheesy lines and explosions, but it didn't always work here I thought.

I think it is a film certainly worth seeing - in terms of visuals and audio, this is perhaps the game changer James Cameron heralded. As a film, it is merely a heavy-handed action/romance movie that misses as much as it hits.

MisterAnarchy · 21-12-2009 07:29PM

basquille wrote: »

but on a visual scale, it's unrivalled!

Oddly enough ,I saw a making of feature on Avatar today on tv and the visuals looked far richer,clearer and brighter than what I saw in the 3D version.
The 3D effect while impressive ,looked washed out and blurry.
Perhaps it was just the cinema I saw it in but I've found the quality of picture in alot of cinemas to be poor.
A film like this needs a digital projector .I saw Transformers 2 on a digital screen and while the film was poor ,the picture quality was superb.
Imax is the acid test though,everything else is substandard.

Basq · 21-12-2009 07:33PM

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The 3D effect while impressive ,looked washed out and blurry.
Perhaps it was just the cinema I saw it in but I've found the quality of picture in alot of cinemas to be poor.

You sure you had the 3D glasses on?

I'm thinking it was the cinema or your eyesight.. it looked crystal clear and extremely effective in the cinema I watched it in last night.

Tea_Bag · 21-12-2009 07:35PM

Epic film 10/10

Id recommend to anyone and everyone willing to listen.

BlitzKrieg · 21-12-2009 07:48PM

Oddly enough ,I saw a making of feature on Avatar today on tv and the visuals looked far richer,clearer and brighter than what I saw in the 3D version.

I've seen both the 2d and 3d version and I can confirm it does look much more colourful without 3D. The issue is the film was designed to be 3D so some colours (particulary on the alien panther) tend to be too shiny in 2D. Others though like the banshee's look alot better in 2D as the much stronger colours make them seem more unique.

Little Acorn · 21-12-2009 08:04PM

Wow!
Went to see it last night,it was my first 3d film and I was amazed.
One of the scariest(and best) parts for me was,

when he got separated from the others,and the following chase scene with the "Thanator" that ensued.

I was literally pushed back in my seat,clenching the arm rests and only noticed after it had finished that my mouth was gaping open!:D

I was mesmerized by

all the exquisite colours of the plants,and also by the creativity involved in all the creatures.

(not sure if that needs to be in a spoiler,but just in case!:-) )

On reflection it is not the best storyline ever created,but due to the amazing visual effects I really got sucked into the story whilst watching,and had tears in my eyes

when their home got destroyed and their futile attempts to defend such a superpower. Was really happy,when they regrouped and got some strategy going,as I was sure it was going to end sadly.

.

All in all-definitely worth going to see. After first laughing at how silly we all looked in our glasses,we were frozen to the screen for the entire film,and left with big smiles on our faces,each discussing our "best bits".
Most fun I've had at the cinema.:)

tunguska · 21-12-2009 08:06PM

Saw it last night and its pretty good. Very much Dances with wolves but not even in the same universe as that film. Clunky dialogue, Cameron really shouldve hired somebody who can actually write to create the screenplay.
Dances with smurfs indeed..........although maybe it should be A man called Smurf.

Handsome Bob · 21-12-2009 09:57PM

mdwexford wrote: »

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.

Batman comes out of TDK as a villain with Gotham facing an unsure future over the death of Harvey Dent. It's not at all hunky dory.

I enjoyed Avatar, I preferred it over Dances With Wolves because Jake was such a grassroots and ordinary character, he was easier to relate to than Costner's character.

I found the story dragging at times but for the most part it was a great spectacle. Interesting to hear Cameron has two sequels planned, anyone have any ideas where they could go with the story from here?

Sleazus · 21-12-2009 11:10PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Interesting to hear Cameron has two sequels planned, anyone have any ideas where they could go with the story from here?

I kinda expected a little bit of text at the end to explain that in about five years the humans came back and destroyed the Na'vi from space.

Seriously, I imagine one of two avenues:

Jake's life on Pandora, when the humans return. Not sure you could call it Avatar if he's spending his whole life in a Na'vi body (unless it's people in Avatars looking for Jake or something as hackneyed); or
A similar story on a different (possibly more "out there" planet - I heard a rumour of 'starfish aliens' abandoned for the film, or creatures covered in hair), with Avatars

The former offers more storytelling opportunities (as repeating on another planet would drive those of us unhappy with the story up the wall, but there would be a "been there, done that" aspect to a second Pandora movie). Though, in fairness, I wouldn't mind a return trip for the visuals. Just hire a half-decent writer next time.

faceman · 21-12-2009 11:36PM

Where do I begin.. Its taken me a couple of days to compile my thoughts on this...

Avatar is a poor film. In fact its pretty mediocre. The story is awful and cliche, the characters are dire (Bar Sigourney Weaver's character) and the dialogue is poor. Not to mention the fact it runs about 45 minutes longer than it needed. In fact maybe even an hour.

But, i enjoyed it a great deal. It was a engulving experience. Im not a fan of 3D. I come from a purist film background, but this is definitely the best, mature use of 3D yet. Now some of the 3D was unnecessary. I mean, a 3D image of people having a conversation offers nothing that 2D image doesnt already do. However fight scenes in the air, glorious deep and colourful scenery does look pretty good in 3D.

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

So the aftermath, would i watch it again? Probably not. Will i watch it in 2D. Never.

johnny_ultimate · 21-12-2009 11:44PM

faceman wrote: »

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

Definitely agree with this. While their facial expressions did occasionally show real emotion (if, of course, you boil humans emotions down to happy / sad / scared / love / anger) the actual physical presence of the characters felt off, somewhat beyond real. Of course it is meant to be an alien species, but the only time I truly felt these were believable creatures was in medium close up.

Pandora, on the other hand, was the only 'character' in the film that surpassed mere plot forwarding archetype IMO. What a wonderful place, and I think the first half of the film was by far the stronger element as you got to know this place. At its best, it felt like you were right there with Jake traversing this wonderful, mysterious planet. When they just started to blow **** up (and tbh, that is all the last hour or so was to me) it seemed like a waste of this epic creation. A triumph of art design (I can't remember many films with such an effective grasp of colour) over storytelling. It is a strange experience, because as much as I was impressed on a sensory level, I just couldn't get past the simplistic conflicts at the core.

Ri_Nollaig · 22-12-2009 12:54AM

faceman wrote: »

Where do I begin.. Its taken me a couple of days to compile my thoughts on this...

Avatar is a poor film. In fact its pretty mediocre. The story is awful and cliche, the characters are dire (Bar Sigourney Weaver's character) and the dialogue is poor. Not to mention the fact it runs about 45 minutes longer than it needed. In fact maybe even an hour.

But, i enjoyed it a great deal. It was a engulving experience. Im not a fan of 3D. I come from a purist film background, but this is definitely the best, mature use of 3D yet. Now some of the 3D was unnecessary. I mean, a 3D image of people having a conversation offers nothing that 2D image doesnt already do. However fight scenes in the air, glorious deep and colourful scenery does look pretty good in 3D.

The Na'vi were too cartoony at times for me. But i have to say, Cameron put more life into Pandora as a planet then George Lucas ever managed with Star Wars. Full credit on that count. You could make nature documentaries about the place!

So the aftermath, would i watch it again? Probably not. Will i watch it in 2D. Never.

This sums up my opinion exactly. The film itself is awful rubbish, even ignoring the copy of a very familiar storyline, the "dances with wolves", its not even a good re-telling of it. It was comically predictable... And for anyone who says this is sci-fi what do you expect? watch 'moon'

The sfx and 3D was without a doubt brilliant. But that will not make a bad movie good.
Was very enjoyable to watch but people ranking this as the best movie in years/groundbreaking is starting to annoy me.

lostexpectation · 22-12-2009 01:26AM

creatures with six legs, that stand up straight, nope, nowhere in this universe or alternative dmiensions, floating rocks, nah

ScumLord · 22-12-2009 02:08AM

Just watched it on download, the quality wasn't great but overall I enjoyed the film. I was all geared up to dislike the film but Cameron won out fairly quickly, there was times in the film where my critical mind wanted to say this or that couldn't work or happen but the storey won out in the end.

It's very relevant and nice to see the human race as the bad guy, we could easily end up like that if technology wins out over balanced ecosystems, that'#s not will ever happen but it's a good message.

I wan't too impressed with the magical quality of the natives but I guess that's how Americans need their critical information processed.

I was impressed with the lead Sam Worthington, I was actually expecting him to be a disabled actor, he did actually look like a disabled person, did he not use his legs for months, was it special effects? It's little details like that, that can lead into me believing the fantastic.

If I get the chance I will certainly be watching this in 3D in a cinema. Overall a great film. It had a good message and it was carried off well.

madma · 22-12-2009 02:55AM

what cinemas in dublin are still showing this in 3D?

krudler · 22-12-2009 03:00AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Just watched it on download, the quality wasn't great but overall I enjoyed the film. I was all geared up to dislike the film but Cameron won out fairly quickly, there was times in the film where my critical mind wanted to say this or that couldn't work or happen but the storey won out in the end.
.

Whyyyyyyyy

Its something that HAS to be seen on the biggest screen and in 3D

ScumLord · 22-12-2009 03:16AM

krudler wrote: »

Whyyyyyyyy Its something that HAS to be seen on the biggest screen and in 3D

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

KerranJast · 22-12-2009 03:20AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

So you supported a criminal enterprise rather than paying to watch something that took thousands of people years of hard work to produce and even then refused to watch it in the state they intended it to be seen? Classy.

PeakOutput · 22-12-2009 03:26AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

wow if you were that impressed with the story(which is rubbish) this is probably going to be the greatest film you have ever seen when you see it on a big screen in 3d

it is films like this that have the potential to seriously dent the illegal download culture

it really is a great film despite its lame story went with 3 friends who are not sci fi people at all and they all loved it

Stercus Accidit · 22-12-2009 03:29AM

May as well eat out of the rubbish bin to spite paying to eat in a restaurant.

The only reason to watch this film is the spectacle and the use of 3d, quite well used and impressive. The story is a bit cheesy and unoriginal.

If cinema tends towards newer and more impressive technology, as in this film, I'll be watching less dvd's at home.

Cupcake_Crisis · 22-12-2009 03:51AM

Going to see it again tomorrow with big group. Will be interesting to see if its as good second time round

krudler · 22-12-2009 04:38AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Because I don't believe the hype, I'm not giving money to some advertising machine. I saw the film on it's own merits and would now pay to watch it in all it's glory. It shouldn't matter weather I see it in 3D or poor quality cam, the storey should shine through and it did in this case.

Course it matters, its a movie about spectacle first, the story is pretty basic, tbh, its the technology that makes it an event movie, how watching a crappy quality cam with crap sound made by some scumbag recording it in a cinema can compare to seeing it in its intended 3D is beyond me

ScumLord · 22-12-2009 05:52AM

KerranJast wrote: »

So you supported a criminal enterprise rather than paying to watch something that took thousands of people years of hard work to produce and even then refused to watch it in the state they intended it to be seen? Classy.

Watch it in a state they chose? :rolleyes: Criminal enterprise? Which criminal enterprise are you talking about? Hollywood, the distributors or the the one person it took to take a camera into the cinema and then upload it?

krudler wrote: »

its the technology that makes it an event movie, how watching a crappy quality cam with crap sound made by some scumbag recording it in a cinema can compare to seeing it in its intended 3D is beyond me

In fairness it was a pretty good quality cam job.

baaaa · 22-12-2009 06:30AM

Was a very good quality cam all things considered.
Don't know would I bother seeing it in cinema though,don't fall for the hype anymore.

Rabies · 22-12-2009 07:22AM

Great effects.
Fully alive and interactive world.
Beautiful creatures.
Interesting world
Nice animation and facial expressions

Predictable
Poor script.

Average movie.

faceman · 22-12-2009 11:20AM

Any further discussion or comments on piracy or illegal downloads will result in a lengthy ban. illegally downloading films is a criminal offense and is not supported or promoted here.

There will be no further warnings.

seclachi · 22-12-2009 12:02PM

I found it a brilliant movie, the 3D was very good, and plot really stuck with me for some reason, I guess im a sucker for the whole rebirth mechanic.

I agree with some of the points, none of the characters were particularly outstanding, but they didnt ruin the story either. I`ll probably go see this one again.

Handsome Bob · 22-12-2009 12:16PM

Perez Hilton has declared that new movie Avatar is a failure in the US.

The online blogger, who regularly hits headlines for his controversial celebrity gossip, said that despite the film claiming huge box office figures in other countries, it has wasted money in the States.

Hilton wrote on his website: "There's $500 million (£311 million) shot to hell! The most expensive movie ever made has FAILED at the box office.

"James Cameron's Avatar raked in a mere $73 million (£45 million) in its opening weekend here in the states. To put that into perspective for you - New Moon earned $73 million (£45 million) in it's FIRST DAY of release, pulling in $125 million (£78 million) domestically over it's opening weekend."

Avatar has achieved a worldwide debut of $260 million (£162 million).

Hilton has previously been described by New York Magazine as "Hollywood's leading box-office prognosticator".

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a192389/hilton-avatar-is-a-flop-in-the-us.html

Meh, that's really not a big deal. I think it's a bit ridiculous of Hilton to expect Avatar to justify its price tag in its opening weekend. For that to happen it not only would have had to beat opening weekend box office records, but it would have had to absolutely blow the records out of the water to "justify" the price tag. So IMO it's a bit of a non-runner from Hilton I'm afraid.

Avatar Superthread

Comments