Avatar Superthread

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 12:22PM

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Was very enjoyable to watch but people ranking this as the best movie in years/groundbreaking is starting to annoy me.

The bolded part is probably why I, and myriads of others like me will annoy you. The rest of us aren't so anal retentive so as to require a film to tick a set list of boxes before we can give it the label of being a great film.

I'm really somewhat of a utilitarian and, as such, I judge this movie by how enjoyable an experience it was and how it made me feel as I left my seat and existed the cinema. You will find a lot of people are like this also.

This movie made my jaw gape in awe, smile with amazement and overall left me elated and feeling like I'd just watched something special. That's all that matters to me, the experience and the resulting happiness. You say you found it enjoyable to watch? Why can't that be enough?

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 02:08PM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

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.

Perez hilton has a very short memory doesnt he?

Titanic didnt break any records on its release, it came #1 in the box office (like Avatar) but it didnt make any amazing overnight numbers. What made titanic a success is it stuck in the cinema for almost 8 months consistently raking in money. Titanic's biggest day was valentines day and it was released the previous december

I dont think Avatar will have the same effect, but it will stick in the 3D and imax cinemas for a fair few months and continue to pull in a steady stream of income. I say Avatar will get a resurgence of popularity post christmas with families going for the 3D experiance while the holidays are still going.

EDIT:

And oh god he shoots he scores!

Exactly as I said

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni1325935/

James Cameron’s Avatar opened this weekend and narrowly missed setting the record for largest December debut of all time. The groundbreaking CGI epic made $77 million once the actual numbers were posted Monday afternoon, just $185,840 shy of the Will Smith starrer I Am Legend ($585M worldwide total).

Avatar also managed $232 million worldwide, the biggest global opening for a non-sequel in the history of cinema.

Not bad for a failure. Seeking new ways to grab attention, Perez Hilton blogged, “The most expensive movie ever made has Failed at the box office,” citing an erroneous claim that the movie was made for $500 million.

He neglected to inform his readers of the record 3D and IMAX sales, which explains why some audiences may be waiting for a show that isn’t sold out with this premium technology. Not even a hint of its strong word of mouth that will easily carry the movie through January. …

seclachi · 22-12-2009 02:18PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Perez hilton has a very short memory doesnt he?

Titanic didnt break any records on its release, it came #1 in the box office (like Avatar) but it didnt make any amazing overnight numbers. What made titanic a success is it stuck in the cinema for almost 8 months consistently raking in money. Titanic's biggest day was valentines day and it was released the previous december

I dont think Avatar will have the same effect, but it will stick in the 3D and imax cinemas for a fair few months and continue to pull in a steady stream of income. I say Avatar will get a resurgence of popularity post christmas with families going for the 3D experiance while the holidays are still going.

I think its fair to say it wasn`t the best of times to release it too, we are right in the middle of the holiday shopping zerg, followed by the rush to get back home, I would imagine in this period many people just dont have time to go to the cinema (for a 3 hour movie no less). I would imagine it will rocket after christmas day and new years, especially around blue monday when people are after a bit of escapism.

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 02:22PM

seclachi wrote: »

I think its fair to say it wasn`t the best of times to release it too, we are right in the middle of the holiday shopping zerg, followed by the rush to get back home, I would imagine in this period many people just dont have time to go to the cinema (for a 3 hour movie no less). I would imagine it will rocket after christmas day and new years, especially around blue monday when people are after a bit of escapism.

We are in agreement, I expect the same. According to IMDB and a friend of mine in LA, the Imax 3D version of the film is booked out into mid january there abouts...

Despite thinking its only an above average film, I probably end up seeing it a third time when I am in London just for the IMAX viewing of it. God bless the cineworld card (cause I didnt pay for my last two screenings of it).

smcelhinney · 22-12-2009 02:29PM

One reason that this film will have staying power is that the technology doesnt yet exist to do this film justice in a home cinema surrounding. With the announcement only the day before release of the impending standard for BD-3D, it'll be a while before this film makes it to an acceptable form of home viewing media.

People will still be going in to see this in its full technicolor 3D glory for months to come.

johnny_ultimate · 22-12-2009 02:33PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

This movie made my jaw gape in awe, smile with amazement and overall left me elated and feeling like I'd just watched something special. That's all that matters to me, the experience and the resulting happiness. You say you found it enjoyable to watch? Why can't that be enough?

I don't think any of us complaining our bitter, overly critical viewers tbh (I see where you are coming from - I felt the same thing with other films such as Star Trek or Drag Me to Hell this year, which I would consider superior films to Avatar). I just think for a lot of film fans visuals aren't quite enough. I have watched films this year that have felt extremely emotionally profound without anywhere near $300 million (Synecdoche New York, Wendy & Lucy to name two). The story of Avatar just left me cold.

Hollywood is extremely capable of producing well told, effective stories. The beginning of Up this year was as emotionally involving as anything I've ever seen. Avatar was just a fantastic looking action film in my eyes. If a film is enjoyable and has a well told story, I often completely invest entirely in the world. This wasn't the case with Avatar (especially for the last 60 minutes or so), and for that reason I thought it was lacking despite its extraordinary production values. At the end of the day visuals are just one element of a good film.

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 03:05PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

At the end of the day visuals are just one element of a good film.

Who says so? Again with these invisible lists with check boxes that need to be marked before you can call a film good. It's arbitrary nonsense.

It just doesn't make sense... all these people saying "it's only average, can't say I liked the characters or plot, I'm going to see it again because I really enjoyed it"

If a film is good enough to warrant multiple viewings then it is a great film, if only for the aspects that people found amazing enough to go back and view more than once.

monkeyfudge · 22-12-2009 03:06PM

I think the problem is it's over inflated price tag.

They just couldn't afford to challenge the audience. So the result is this horribly predictable cliched dull piece of dross.

I watched the Dark Crystal on BluRay last night. Hadn't seen it in a good many years... and there was several hundred times more imagination in there than in Avatar. You had genuinely original alien cultures and creature designs and guess what, you also had a great story with a hell of a lot of heart in it too.

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 03:19PM

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I watched the Dark Crystal on BluRay last night. Hadn't seen it in a good many years...

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 03:27PM

Who says so? Again with these invisible lists with check boxes that need to be marked before you can call a film good. It's arbitrary nonsense.

Can you not consider these things people enjoy in films?

You enjoy visual eyecandy. Personnally I enjoy great characterisation. Alot of the films you named as contrast to Avatar, Jurassic Park, ET, Star Wars. THey had likeable interesting and entertaining characters. What I like best about the Indiana Jones films...IS INDIANA JONES, he is a very likeable character, they could have done an Indy film following a day of him teaching at the university and I would have loved it because I know even without the tombs or nazi plots I would find him an entertaining and likeable characters.

Equally there are people who enjoy a good plot.

There is no invisible checklist, its just different priorities on what people like foremost in their films.

It just doesn't make sense... all these people saying "it's only average, can't say I liked the characters or plot, I'm going to see it again because I really enjoyed it" If a film is good enough to warrant multiple viewings then it is a great film, if only for the aspects that people found amazing enough to go back and view more than once.

I think I'm the only one who has said the film is only average and have gone to multiple viewings. And while I admit yes it doesnt make sense that I would slate the film as average but I have seen it more times then films that I have enjoyed more, I refuse to have you assume for me that I am going because its good enough. Both occasions were free viewings because I have been to the cinema enough times already this month to give me a free pass on my cineworld card, I had the time to waste (a cancelled meeting) and yes I was (thanks in part to your response to my original review) encoruged to see the film in 3D because the film is expected to be the make it or break it film for 3D cinema.

The imax screening will be because I am moving to london in the near year and my mum wants to see the film, she knows both my sister and I felt it was average but its the sort of film she enjoys (she's a big star wars geek) so I am taking her to the imax screening in london when we are over there, I think you'd agree I should at least keep it somewhat interesting for myself and also give her an oppurtunity to see the film at its best?

I think you misunderstand above average, there are many films I consider above average but have easily been able to sit through multiple screenings of. Just because something is watchable doesnt make it great.

monkeyfudge · 22-12-2009 03:27PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

But it isn't a good story.

There are plenty of blockbusters I would have seen as a kid that I would have considered to be terrible, and would consider to be even worse now.

Neverending Story for instance holds up horribly these days... although in fairness it still shows more imagination and creativity than Avatar... a lot of that would be down to what remnants of the source material are still in the film.

Oh and can I just say that 'Unobtainium' is easily the most lazy McGuffin in the history of cinema.

faceman · 22-12-2009 03:36PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

I think alot of people who are critical of it do agree that some of the scenes are jaw dropping, no one can deny that. I also enjoyed it but think it was an awful movie and it certainly has no re-watch factor to me, especially in 2D.

With regard to a child watching it, of course they will be blown away. Children usually are. That doesnt change the fact its a poor film.

To quote Dogma (God Im a nerd!

) when they discuss faith, the same analogy can be used to explain why kids are easily entertained:

"....like a glass of water. When you're young, the glass is full, and it's easy to fill up. But the older you get, the bigger the glass gets, and the same amount of water doesn't fill the glass anymore. Periodically, the glass has to be refilled."

uncleoswald · 22-12-2009 03:49PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

Let me guess, you watched it first in your childhood? Tell you what, 10 years from now ask a person that seen Avatar first when they were a kid how much heart they feel this film has and how good the story is and see what they say.

Possibly, but I doubt it. It might stay with some people in the same way as a trip to an amusement park etc.... but not the way I felt about Indy and Chewie or people from later generations thought of Buzz Lightyear and Sully and now whoever the hell is in Twilight. I remember when the Phantom Menace came out (Avatar is clearly a miles better movie) and whenever it was criticised you'd just hear how it wasn't made for the fans but the children and how they would fall for it the same way we fell for the older movies but I see no evidence of that today beyond the merchandise juggernaught.

I just think when the main thing that a movie has going for it is its technology then its doomed to age badly. How will Avatar look in 5-10 years?

Fysh · 22-12-2009 03:56PM

Having watched Avatar in 3d yesterday afternoon, I think I've now safely settled on my opinion of it:

Exceptional 3d work, CGI that's pretty good but not as good as James Cameron's promotional machine would like to believe, and a storyline & dialogue that were so simplistic as to render the whole thing more like watching cutscenes from the best-looking videogame in history rather than a proper and cohesive narrative in its own right.

Future of cinema? I bloody hope not.

KerranJast · 22-12-2009 04:07PM

uncleoswald wrote: »

I just think when the main thing that a movie has going for it is its technology then its doomed to age badly. How will Avatar look in 5-10 years?

Terminator 2, Jurassic Park & The Matrix have all held up well tbf and I expect Avatar to stand up fairly well too. I expect it to be remembered in the same light as JP. Hokey plot with few memorable characters (all people really remember are a few lines "clever girl", "spared no expense") but with groundbreaking, awe inspiring visuals. I'd go further though and say at least Avatar has a memorable character in Neytiri.

monkeyfudge · 22-12-2009 04:11PM

The only character that sticks out in my head is the military general.

I admired his tenacity. Made the final action sequences worthwhile.

Dr. Greenthumb · 22-12-2009 04:18PM

Saw avatar last night and have to say i thought it was avarage at best. None of the characters are that likeable (apart from the girl alien maybe Lol) the lead male is very weak, the story is crap and unbelievably predictable and they could have cut a good half hour off it and it would've only improved it. What has happened to the skill of character development, these "amazing" films spend too much on graphics and not enough on the actors.

The CGI / graphics were good but in my own opinion if i want to sit down for over 2 hours watching something with amazing scenery etc i'd watch a David Attenborough boxset which would be a lot more entertaining.

uncleoswald · 22-12-2009 04:21PM

KerranJast wrote: »

Terminator 2, Jurassic Park & The Matrix have all held up well tbf and I expect Avatar to stand up fairly well too. I expect it to be remembered in the same light as JP. Hokey plot with few memorable characters (all people really remember are a few lines "clever girl", "spared no expense") but with groundbreaking, awe inspiring visuals. I'd go further though and say at least Avatar has a memorable character in Neytiri.

Interesting that you name those movies. Terminator 2 was more then just another sequel, it was one of the greatest action movies ever made and had two of the most loved film characters of all time in iconic scene after iconic scene. Thats why it has held up. However the JP & Matrix sequels will be forgotton in history books despite huge budgets and state of the art technology and yet people still watch the original two which suggests there are a lot more to those movies then its visuals. In fact I'd say it was becauseof some very charasmatic performances from Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern that people still like Jurrasic Park and no way in hell will Neytiri ever be as memorable as Agent Smith.

jarvisob · 22-12-2009 04:25PM

Great film... 3d is unreal!! Didn't blow me away as much as lord of the rings but it came close... i understand peoples issues maybe with the story but i thought it was well told. I feel sorry for those people who watched those long trailers before going to see it-they give away so much!

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 04:30PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Can you not consider these things people enjoy in films?

I can, certainly. But what I was replying to was phrased as a general statement rather than a opinion only held personally.

The problem further is that I also found the 2 main characters interesting. I felt Sullys motivations, adaptation and final acceptance of being a Na'vi interesting to watch. I also found Neytiri to be extremely well developed as a character. I never imagined that any of the other characters where more than just needed to add context and motivation. The story is about Jake and Neytiri, and the events that are happening around their relationship.

Aside from the visual spectacle I liked the story, and regardless of how predictable people found it, I never expected

the humans to be deported from the planet. To end with my loyalties being tied to an Alien species other than my own was an original experience for me

.

That being said, I can see where people are coming from. I personally hated UP, I found the whole

"growing old/death/unaccomplished dreams"

montage at the start to be a cheap ploy to pull at the audiences heart strings and it actually repulsed me more than evoking an emotional response. That opening actually impacted how well I enjoyed the rest of the film, which was another by-the-numbers friendship/adventure film churned out of the Pixar mill. It's not a popular opinion but I hold it due to my own personal experience with that film.

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 04:36PM

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

isnt that why Clerks is such a cult classic?

uncleoswald · 22-12-2009 04:38PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date.

Out of interest do you mean from a technological or artistic view point?

Dr. Greenthumb · 22-12-2009 04:40PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

IMO one good aspect (visualization) does not make it a great film. It may make enjoyable and entertaining but not necessarily a film to to be ranked along side the best.

All the old films (Ben Hur, Spartacus, Wonderful Life etc) had no special effects and had to rely on good acting and character development to make them great and i wouldn't put avatar in the same category.

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 04:41PM

All the old films (Ben Hur, Spartacus, Wonderful Life etc) had no special effects

you're kidding right?

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 04:51PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

isnt that why Clerks is such a cult classic?

Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by a "cult classic" in reference to my question. Do you think Clerks is a great film? A "cult classic" usually refers to a film largely viewed as below average to woeful, but that also has a polarized small following of viewers who found it brilliant.

For example, the film "Showgirls" would be considered a cult classic.

johnny_ultimate · 22-12-2009 05:00PM

L31mr0d wrote: »

I just think with Avatar, people are shining too bright a light on the flaws and not lauding enough the technical achievement and visual spectacle of it. It is, without a doubt, the most visually impressive film to date. That achievement alone is enough to make it a great film, imo.

Can I ask you, if you seen a film with great characterization, and little in the way of visuals would you consider that film to be great on that 1 quality alone?

Apologies if I generalised with the 'visuals don't make a good film' comment, but there is so many more elements to cinema than merely sight - they are basic foundations of cinematic storytelling. Of course visuals are vital - the last half hour of Where the Wild Things Are tells the story with barely any dialogue, and is extremely powerful as a result - the character's actions tell the story. I'm not denying for a second visuals are not important - they are vital in the medium, I just think they are one part of a more complicated mixture that my favourite films (to avoid a generalisation) tend to feature. Something like (to pick one random example) Spirited Away is a film with tremendous art design, and like Pandora, a world of beauty. Yet the characters are more credible, the tale & tone more original and compelling. Avatar may compete with it visually (arguably), but I consider Spirited Away a better film because visuals are extraordinary, but so is the hypnotic story (which, incidentally, is rather simple too, but this works to its benefit).

I don't think anyone on this thread has said the film looks bad, in fact quite the opposite. It is a technical accomplishment (how could it not be with 300 million thrown at it?). But if I compare it to say Star Trek (my favourite action / sci-fi film of the year) it comes up short. They both may look great, but ST had more iconic, entertaining characters (Kirk, Spock), a credible villain (Nero), plenty of humour, and more compelling action (I found the spacesuit dive in ST far more enjoyable than the final extended action sequence of Avatar, which felt like a rehash of LotR, Return of the Jedi and countless other action films).

As you rightly say, it is all opinion. But there are elements of film that can combine to make a film more interesting than mere visual ingenuity. Give someone like Spike Jonze, Hayao Miyasaki or JJ Abrams (to use the three directors I've mentioned already) $300 million, and I think they could make a film as visually impressive, but also more rounded.

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 05:03PM

Do you think Clerks is a great film?

Yes I consider clerks a great film.

other films that dont rely on great visuals that I consider great

A Man Escaped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrBZF9AFH4Q

man bites dog.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcPhaieTg4o

L31mr0d · 22-12-2009 05:34PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes I consider clerks a great film.

Okay, so you accept that a film doesn't have to be great in every possible aspect to be considered a great film? Then do you also accept that just as a film that only has amazing characterization can be considered great, that a film that only has amazing visuals can be considered great?

Dr. Greenthumb · 22-12-2009 05:41PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

you're kidding right?

Maybe Ben Hur isn't liked by the masses or you but it's a great film IMO. Anyway that's beside the point as films are all based on personal choice.

The point I'm making is that one aspect of a movies such as the special effects doesn't make it a great / classic movie. I enjoyed the special effects in avatar but the rest left a lot to be desired.

BlitzKrieg · 22-12-2009 05:59PM

Dr. Greenthumb wrote: »

Maybe Ben Hur isn't liked by the masses or you but it's a great film IMO. Anyway that's beside the point as films are all based on personal choice.

The point I'm making is that one aspect of a movies such as the special effects doesn't make it a great / classic movie. I enjoyed the special effects in avatar but the rest left a lot to be desired.

no no no

I wasnt saying ben hur's a bad film. Its just... IT IS A SFX spectacular. Maybe not the CGI sfx we know today. But its a film that relied on a number of effect sequences throughout its narrative (the chariot race being the most famous)

Avatar Superthread

Comments